MR. ZAMIRULLAH SUBEDARKHAN KHAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO-WARD 20(3)(5), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4165/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 April 2024AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged that the purchases were bogus but held that adding 100% of the amount was excessive. It directed the CIT(A) to add only a reasonable profit rate on these purchases.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared total income and later reassessment proceedings were initiated based on information of bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer added the full amount of bogus purchases as the assessee failed to establish their genuineness.

What were the issues?

Whether the entire amount of bogus purchases should be added to the income, and if not, what is the appropriate method to determine the addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 69C,Section 133(6),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY

For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr. A.R

O R D E R Per: Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountant Member:

1. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order of the Ld. CIT Appeal passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the ‘Act’ in short] vide order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1056652408(1) dated 29/9/2023 for the assessment year 2011-12.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee had filed its return of income declaring the total income at Rs.14,08,440/- which was processed Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY) (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 30.04.2024. Snehal C. Ayare, Stenographer Dy/Asstt. Registrar, 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 →