SAMARTHMAL SANGHVI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3463/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 July 2017AY 2010-112 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 upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue was not in appeal and it would not be appropriate to take away the benefit already granted.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming the addition of 12.5% of gross profit on account of bogus purchases. The assessee's counsel agreed to the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the addition of profit on account of bogus purchases. The assessee accepted the addition made by the CIT(A).

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Shri Shamim Yahya

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Salecha, Shri V.Janardhanan (Sr.DR)
For Respondent: Shri V.Janardhanan (Sr.DR)
Hearing: 28.06.2017Pronounced: 03.07.2017

O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT (Appeals) dated 09.02.2017 and pertains to assessment year 2010- 2011.

2.

In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved by the confirmation of 12.5% minus gross profit out of bogus purchases.

3.

I have heard both the Counsel and perused the records. The learned Counsel of the assessee submitted that he shall be agreeing to the order of learned CIT(A). The learned Departmental Representative referred to the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of N.K.Industry v. DCIT [IT Appeal No.240 of 2003 dated 20.06.2016] wherein the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court had held that 100% out of bogus purchases should be added instead

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →