INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(4), KALYAN vs. SMT SAROJ SHAILENDRA BHAGAT, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6861/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 December 2019AY 2009-106 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition of 25% of bogus purchases by the CIT(A) was on the higher side. It directed that the addition should be restricted to 5% Gross Profit over and above the GP already declared by the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee was found to have obtained bogus purchase bills from hawala operators. The Assessing Officer (AO) added the entire amount of these purchases to the assessee's income. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) restricted the addition to 25% of the alleged bogus purchases.

What were the issues?

Whether the entire amount of bogus purchases should be added to income, and if not, what is the appropriate method for estimation of profit on such purchases.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Chothani, AR
For Respondent: Shri R.Bhoopathi, DR

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A), Mumbai 4. आयकर आयु�त / CIT, Mumbai 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�या�पत ��त //True Copy//

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asst. Registrar) आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / 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 →