KIRAN NAVIN DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(2)(4), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2603/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 June 2018AY 2011-1218 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, relying on various judicial pronouncements that allow for estimation of profit in cases of bogus purchases. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which restricted the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases to 12.5%. The Assessing Officer had made additions based on information that suppliers were hawala traders. The assessee remained unrepresented during the hearings.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases was justified, and if not, what is the appropriate method for estimation of profit in such cases.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 133(6)

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, ‘H’ MUMBAI

Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal-DR
Hearing: 20/06/2018

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. 4. आयकर आयु�त / CIT(A)- , 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 →