JAYPRAKASH N LAKHANI,ULHASNAGAR vs. JT CIT RG 2, KALYAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2119/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 August 2018AY 2010-1118 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering various judicial pronouncements, held that while purchases may have been made from bogus parties, the purchases themselves were not entirely bogus. Therefore, only the profit element embedded in such purchases should be taxed.

What were the facts?

The assessee is aggrieved by the confirmation of an addition on account of unverifiable purchases. The Assessing Officer made an addition of 25% of the purchases, which was reduced to 25% by the First Appellate Authority.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition on account of unverifiable purchases is justified, and if so, to what extent. Whether the amount can be treated as deemed dividend.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 2(22)(e)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(10)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘J’ MUMBAI

Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Hari H. Dudani
For Respondent: Shri V. K. Chaturvedi Sr.DR
Hearing: 13/08/2018

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant (Respective assessee) 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT, Mumbai.

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →