9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 911X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led under Section 260A of the Incometax Act, 1961, the revenue has challenged the order dated 10.09.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)VII, Ahmedabad (herein after referred to as 'the CIT (Appeals)' for short) in CIT Appeal No. CIT(A)VII/ Wd.3(4)/60/042005 as well as the order dated 30.01.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, (herein after referre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o question of making false entries in the books of account with regard to the purchase. The CIT (Appeals), by relying upon the decision in case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. V. Commissioner of Incometax reported in [2015] 58 taxman.com 44(Gujarat), held that the assessee would be liable to pay the income tax only to the ratio of 25% of the amount of purchase value and not on the entire socalled bogus pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... referred decision.
6. Heard learned advocate for the respective parties. Perused the orders passed by the CIT (Appeals) as the the ITAT and the ratio laid down by the division bench of this Court in case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. V. Commissioner of Incometax (supra) and considering the above, we are of the opinion that the present appeal is meritless and accordingly is dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
