PERRY IMPLEX,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 19(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2052/MUM/2020Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 August 2022AY 2007-086 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, following a jurisdictional High Court decision. The addition was to be restricted to the difference in gross profit not disclosed by the assessee on the alleged bogus purchases, after providing an adequate opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of 8% of alleged bogus purchases from certain parties, treating them as non-genuine. The assessee argued that the purchases were genuine and payments were made through account payee cheques, but the AO disallowed the purchases for not providing delivery challans and estimated a profit margin.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made on account of alleged bogus purchases was justified, and if so, to what extent. Whether the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

Hearing: 08.08.2022Pronounced: 22.08.2022

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. संबंधधत आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT धिभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.

आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy//

(Asst. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →