ITO 33(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. SMT. KARISHMA SUMEET MEHTA, MUMBAI

ITA 6532/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 December 2019AY 2012-133 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 held that while the assessee had primary purchase documents and made payments through banking channels, they failed to produce suppliers for confirmation. The estimation of 12.5% profit by the CIT(A) was considered fair and reasonable given the nature of the business.

What were the facts?

The assessee was engaged in the business of chemicals. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 15.03 Lacs on account of alleged bogus purchases, estimating the profit element at 25%. The CIT(A) reduced this estimation to 12.5%.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the estimation of profit on alleged bogus purchases. The tribunal had to decide whether the CIT(A)'s reduction in the profit estimation was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi – Ld. DR

सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 05/12/2019 Date of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/12/2019 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by revenue for Assessment Year [in short referred to as ‘AY’] 2012-13 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income- Tax (Appeals)-45, Mumbai, [in short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Appeal No. CIT(A)-45/ITO-33(2)(2)/ITA-140/2015-16 dated 10/07/2018. It is evident from grounds of appeal that the sole issue that arises for our

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →