INCOME TAX OFFICER-26(2)(3), MUMBAI vs. NOORJAHAN NIYAZ AHMED KHAN, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 809/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 July 2021AY 2011-123 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of alleged non-genuine purchases to be fair and reasonable, upholding the lower appellate authority's order.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment based on information about alleged bogus purchases. The AO disallowed a portion of these purchases, estimating profit at 25%. The CIT(A) reduced this disallowance to 12.5%.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the appropriate rate of profit to be disallowed on account of alleged non-genuine purchases.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JM)

For Appellant: Shri Jafar Hadsa (AR)
For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai (DR), Shri Jafar Hadsa (AR)
Hearing: 27/05/2021Pronounced: 06/07/2021

आदेश प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. 3. आयकर आय क्त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. आयकर आय क्त / CIT 5. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, म ुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. सत्य दपि प्रदि //True Copy//

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →