ACIT-19(1), MUMBAI vs. PERRY IMPEX, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6983/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 February 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the impugned transactions were not genuine purchases but accommodation entries. It directed the AO to estimate the profit from these non-genuine purchases at 2.5% for both assessment years.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Perry Impex, was reassessed for AY 2009-10 and 2011-12 based on information regarding bogus purchases from certain entities. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated a portion of these purchases as non-genuine accommodation entries.

What were the issues?

The primary issues were the validity of reassessment proceedings and the estimation of profit on bogus purchases. The tribunal also considered the grounds regarding notice to a non-existent entity and penalty.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 271(1)(c),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi,AR
For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani(Sr. DR)
Hearing: 24.02.2025Pronounced: 27.02.2025

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.6800/MUM/2024
ITA No.6984/MUM/2024

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आदेश की प्रयियलयि अग्रेयिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 3.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →