YFC Projects (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

46 DTR 496High Court2010#9807 most cited

What is YFC Projects (P) Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

The Assessing Officer is not justified in disallowing purchases solely for non-filing of supplier confirmations when the assessee provides bank certificates showing cheque clearance and no defects in account books. The disallowance of expenditure cannot be made merely because the seller admitted to issuing bogus vouchers, without evidence that the assessee received bogus vouchers.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2023.

Also referred to as

YFC Projects Pvt Ltd v DCIT · bogus purchases · disallowance of purchases · non-filing of confirmations · bank certificate · cheque clearance · defects in books of account · bogus vouchers

Judgments citing YFC Projects (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

ACIT Circle-9(1), New Delhi vs. Fauji Exim Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3661/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…irect the Assessing Officer to delete the addition in question at Rs. 43,34,496 made by the Assessing Officer on account of the alleged bogus purchases made from Shree Laxmi Industrial Corporation....” 5.7 In the case of YFC Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (2010) 46 DTR 496 Hon'ble Delhi, ITAT held that "non-filing of confirmations. Certificate from Bank. AO was not justified in making disallowances of purchases made by the assessee merely due to non- filing of confirmation from suppliers especially when the assessee has filed certificate from bank indicating the facts the cheques issued by it were cleared and no def…

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udipur vs. M/S. Wagad Constrution Company, Udaipur

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 30/JODH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 Jan 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Venkatesh V. (JCIT-Sr.DR)
Section 143(1)

…installed during the year relating to Manufacturing of Ready Mix Concrete. 26.3 The above facts has been accepted by in a similar case additional depreciation has been allowed by Delhi Tribunal on RMC plant in case of YFC Projects (P) Ltd. vs Dy. CIT (2010) 46 DTR 496 (Delhi Trib (copy enclosed); relying on decisions rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court and following other judgments in cases of :- i. India Cine Agencies v. CIT (2009) 308 ITR 98 (SC) ii. Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage v. R. Rajappa AIR 1978 SC 548 iii. CITY. J.B. Kharwar and Sons [1987] 163 TTR 394(Guj) iv. CIT v. Premier Tobacco Packers (P)…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Motisons Jewellers Ltdl, Jaipur

ITA 161/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…owed. c) CIT v Hi Lux Automotive (P.) Ltd. (2009) 23 DTR 385 / 183 Taxman 260 (Del) (HC)(Copy at Case Law PB Page No.10-14) d) Rajesh P. Soni v. ACIT (2006) 100 TTJ 892 (Ahd.) (Trib.)(Copy at Case Law PB Page No. 15-18) e) YFC Projects (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (2010) 46 DTR 496 (Delhi)(Trib.)(Copy at Case Law PB Page No. 19-22) f) 2018 (12) TMI 1385 - ITAT DELHI ACIT Central Circle-7, New Delhi v/s Karam Chand Rubber Industries Pvt Ltd (Copy at Case Law PB Page No. 23-27) g) DCIT 25 (3) , 308, C-11, Mumbai Versus Shri Rajeev G. Kalathil- 2014 (8) TMI 807 - ITAT MUMBAI(Copy at Case Law PB Page No. 28-31) h) ITO vs. Surana…

M/S. Sarswati Extrusion Pvt.Ltd, Aurangabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Aurangabad

ITA 1716/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1546/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Saraswati Extrusions Ward-2(4), Aurangabad. Vs Pvt. Ltd., . H-20, Midc, Waluj, Aurangabad – 431136. Pan: Aajcs 6024 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1716/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S.Saraswati Extrusions Pvt. The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs Ward-2(4), Aurangabad. H-20, Midc, Waluj, . Aurangabad – 431136. Pan: Aajcs 6024 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S & Assessee’S Cross Appeals Ita No.1546 & 1716/Pun/2017 For A.Y. 2011-12 Arising Against The Ld.Cit(A)- 2, Aurangabad’S Order Dated 12.04.2017 Passed In Appeal No.Abd/Cit(A)-2/E-File/57/2016-17, In Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)

…r has admitted before the Sales Tax Authorities that they have issued bogus vouchers as there was no evidence that bogus vouchers were issued to the assessee. The assessee then relied upon the decision given in the case of YFC Projects (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT (2010) 46 DTR 496 (Delhi-Trib) to state that the assessing officer was not justified in making disallowance of purchases made by the assessee merely due to non-filing of confirmation of suppliers especially when the assessee had filed certificate from bank indicating the fact that the cheque issued by it was cleared and no defects in the books of accounts was point…

Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Aurangabad vs. M/S. Saraswati Extrusions Pvt.Ltd, Aurangabad

ITA 1546/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1546/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Saraswati Extrusions Ward-2(4), Aurangabad. Vs Pvt. Ltd., . H-20, Midc, Waluj, Aurangabad – 431136. Pan: Aajcs 6024 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1716/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S.Saraswati Extrusions Pvt. The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs Ward-2(4), Aurangabad. H-20, Midc, Waluj, . Aurangabad – 431136. Pan: Aajcs 6024 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S & Assessee’S Cross Appeals Ita No.1546 & 1716/Pun/2017 For A.Y. 2011-12 Arising Against The Ld.Cit(A)- 2, Aurangabad’S Order Dated 12.04.2017 Passed In Appeal No.Abd/Cit(A)-2/E-File/57/2016-17, In Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)

…r has admitted before the Sales Tax Authorities that they have issued bogus vouchers as there was no evidence that bogus vouchers were issued to the assessee. The assessee then relied upon the decision given in the case of YFC Projects (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT (2010) 46 DTR 496 (Delhi-Trib) to state that the assessing officer was not justified in making disallowance of purchases made by the assessee merely due to non-filing of confirmation of suppliers especially when the assessee had filed certificate from bank indicating the fact that the cheque issued by it was cleared and no defects in the books of accounts was point…

Jet Chemicals P.Ltd, Kalyan vs. Ast CIT Cir 1, Kalyan

ITA 3707/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3707/Mum/2017, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Sh. Haresh P. ShahFor Respondent: Sh. Suman Kumar
Section 143(1)

…ustified and the credit for such purchase had to be given. The aforesaid view was also supported by latest judgment of Bombay High Court in case of Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT. The other decision in the case of YEC projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (46 DTR 496) (Delhi) (Tribunal) also supported the above view. In the above mentioned cases, it was held that the AO was not justified in making disallowance of purchases merely due to non filing of confirmation from suppliers especially when the assessee had filed certificate from bank indicating that the cheques issued by it were cleared and no defects in t…

Asst CIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Metcraft Engineering Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5293/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Acit – 25(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Metcraft Engineering Corporation, 601-602, Siddarth Arcade, 3 Lt Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai – 400 092 Pan/Gir No. Aaafm1677M Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM ACIT – 25(2), Mumbai Vs. M/s. Metcraft Engineering Corporation, 601-602, Siddarth Arcade, 3 LT Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai – 400 092 PAN/GIR No. AAAFM1677M Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue by Shri S.R.Kirtane Assessee by Dr. K. Shivaram Date of Hearing 08/12/2016 Date of Pronouncement 15 /02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A) for the Assessment year 2010-11 in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) of the IT Act. 2. The revenue has…

ITO 31(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Manjula S. Shah, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7220/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Mrs. Manjula S. Shah, Room No.704, C-11, Prop. Of M/S Eastment बनाम/ Pratayaksha Kar Bhavan, Chemicals, 3/202, Rishabh Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mansion, S.V.Road, Nr. St. Bandra(East), John School, Mumbai-400051 Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aapps3790Q

Section 133(6)Section 69C

…aw in reversing the finding arrived at by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepting the said transaction as a genuine transaction" (v) The Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of YFC Project Pvt. Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 46 DTR 496 / 134 TT) 167 (Delhi) has held that - "The assessee has achieved a turnover of Rs. 884.81 lakhs. It has shown net profit of Rs.79.11 lakhs. Its net profit in terms of percentage is almost double than the previous year. Assessing Officer was unable to point out a single defect in its books of account, Merely non-filing of confirmation from two supp…

ACIT 25(1), Mumbai vs. Chirag Construction, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3604/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit-25(1), M/S Chirag Construction Room No.202, 02Nd Floor, Company, बनाम/ Pratayakshkar Bhavan, 105, Gopal Puri, S.V.Road, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Borivali (W), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400066 Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) (""यथ" /Respondent) Pan. No.Aacfc7646N

…aw in reversing the finding arrived at by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepting the said transaction as a genuine transaction" (v) The Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of YFC Project Pvt. Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 46 DTR 496 / 134 TT) 167 (Delhi) has held that - "The assessee has achieved a turnover of Rs. 884.81 lakhs. It has shown net profit of Rs.79.11 lakhs. Its net profit in terms of percentage is almost double than the previous year. Assessing Officer was unable to point out a single defect in its books of account, Merely non-filing of confirmation from two supp…

ITO 25(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Pankaj Enterprises, Mumbai

ITA 5238/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singhआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./5238/Mum/2013, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year:2010-11 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Income Tax Officer-25(2)(2) M/S. Pankaj Enterprises 46-A, 2Nd Floor, Ganjawala Apt. No.2 C-11 Bldg., Room No.106, Pratyakshakar Vs. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Ganjawala Lane,Borivali(W),Mumbai-92. Mumbai-400 051. Pan:Aaafp 2176 J (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" Revenue By: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang-Dr Assessee By: None सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30.06.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 13.07.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dated 10.05.2013,Of The Cit (A)-35, Mumbai, The Assessing Officer (A.O.) Has Filed The Present Appeal.None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee .We Are Deciding The Appeal On Merits After Hearing The Departmental Representative (Dr).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Radha Katyal Narang-DR
Section 133Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “सी मुंबई सी सी ” ” ” ” खंडपीठ सी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal “C”Bench Mumbai सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं पवन "सह पवन "सह, "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं एवं पवन "सह पवन "सह "याियक "याियक सद"य सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Pawan Singh, Judicial Member आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./5238/Mum/2013, िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year:2010-11 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Income tax Of…

ACIT 25(3), Mumbai vs. Rajeev G Kalathil, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 5312/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5312/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Rajeev G Kalathil, Tax -25(3), M-605, Regency Park, Vs. 308, C-11, Rna Millennium Township, Bandra-Kurla Complex, M G Road, Kandivali (W), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400067 Mumbai-400051 (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Uday B Jakke
Section 69C

…ming to conclusion, the ld.CIT(A) relied on the following decisions: i) CIT V/s M K Brothers -163 ITR 249(Guj); ii) ITO V/s Permanand 107 TTJ 395, ITAT Jodhpur Bench; iii) Diagnostics V/s CIT (334 ITR 111) Calcutta High Court; iv) YFC Project Pvt Ltd V/s DCIT 46 DTR 496/134 TTJ 167 (Del); 5 CO No.249/M/14 v) Free India Assurance Services Ltd V/s DCIT 62 DTR 349 /(2011)12 Taxman.com 424 (Mum); vi) Rajmal Lakhichand V/s ACIT 79 ITD 84 vii) Kishinchand Chellaram V/s CIT 125 ITR713 (Supreme Court) viii) Kanchanwala Gems -122 TTJ 854, Jaipur Bench ITAT; ix) Babulal C Borana V/s ITO (282 ITR 251) (Bombay High Court);…

YFC Projects (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (46 DTR 496) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax