PRABHULAL DOSHI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(2)(5), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3501/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 July 2017AY 2011-122 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 confirmed the order of the CIT(A) which allowed 6.5% of bogus purchases. Since the Revenue was not in appeal, the assessee could not be deprived of the benefit already granted.

What were the facts?

The assessee is aggrieved by the confirmation of 6.5% of bogus purchases by the CIT(A). The assessee's counsel agreed to the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)'s order allowing a partial addition for bogus purchases should be upheld when the assessee accepts it and the Revenue is not in appeal.

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 2011- 2012.

2.

In this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved by the confirmation of 6.5% out of bogus purchases.

3.

I have heard both the Counsel and perused the records. The learned Counsel of the assessee submitted that he will 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 →