STULZ CHSPL (INDIA) P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 7(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1514/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 April 2017AY 2009-103 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases, citing High Court judgments. The AO was also directed to examine and decide afresh the claim for further reduction on account of VAT paid by the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals concerned additions made by the AO for 'bogus purchases' for AYs 2009-2010 and 2010-2011. The CIT(A) had confirmed the entire addition in both years.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the quantum of addition for bogus purchases. A secondary issue involved the validity of reassessment proceedings for AY 2009-2010, though this was not explicitly decided in the final order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, “E” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah
Hearing: 19.04.2017Pronounced: 26.04.2017

अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant by : Shri Bhupendra Shah प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent by : Shri Vishwas Mundhe, DR सुनवाई की तायीख / Date of Hearing : 19.04.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date of Pronouncement : 26.04.2017 आदेश / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: There are two appeals under consideration for AYs 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 against two different orders of the CIT (A). The issue raised in both the appeals is common and it relates to „bogus purchases‟ and its taxation.

2.

At the outset, ld AR for the assessee submitted that the AO made entire bogus purchases as addition. It involves three suppliers in the case of AY 2009- 2010 amounting to Rs. 11,76,576/- and Rs. 13,77,869/- for AY 2010-2011. Further, on appeal, FAA confirmed the entire addition in both the AYs. Aggrieved with the said decision of the CIT (A), assessee is in appeal for both the years. Assessee also raised the legal issue relating to the validity of the reassessment proceedings for AY 2009-2010 only.

3.

Deviating from the grounds in both the appeals, Ld AR for the assessee submitted that assessee will be content if a direction is given to the AO setting aside the order of the CIT (A) in both the AYs to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases as being consistently done by the Tribunal.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →