M/S.MEDICURE CHEMIST,MUMBAI vs. JT CIT RANGE-26(2), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that disallowing the entire purchase amount of Rs. 99,936/- was unjustified when the claim in the Profit & Loss Account was only for depreciation. The disallowance should be restricted to the depreciation claimed on the bogus purchases.
What were the facts?
The assessee debited purchases of Rs. 99,936/- to Furniture & Fixtures and claimed depreciation of Rs. 4,997/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed the entire purchase amount, holding it to be bogus.
What were the issues?
Whether the entire amount of bogus purchases should be disallowed or only the depreciation claimed on such purchases.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC Bench, Mumbai
Before: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-38, Mumbai dated 4th April, 2018 and pertains to A.Y. 2012-13.
The issue raised is that the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of `99,936/- on account of purchase held to be bogus.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has made the aforesaid purchases and debited the same to Furniture & Fixtures and claimed depreciation of `4,997/- only. Upon holding the purchases to be bogus the entire amount of `99,936/- was disallowed and added to the income of the assessee.
Against this order the assessee had appealed before us. Upon hearing both the Counsels and perusing the records, we find that when the claim in the Profit & Loss Account was only a debit of `4,997/- on account of depreciation there was no justification whatsoever of disallowing and M/s. Medicure Chemist adding the sum of `99,936/- debited to Furniture and Fixtures as addition to the Profit & Loss Account.
In this view of the matter we modify the order of the authorities below and hold that the disallowance should be restricted to the claim of depreciation of `4,997/- on the purchases of fixed assets held to be bogus.
In the result this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 20th December, 2019.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026