ITAT Mumbai Judgments — July 2017

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to sustain 6.5% disallowance on bogus purchases. Although the Revenue could have potentially claimed 100% disallowance based on higher court precedents, it was not an appeal by the Revenue, and therefore, the relief granted by CIT(A) was not disturbed.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of disallowances by the CIT(A). For one disallowance, it was restored to the AO for verification of FBT payment, and for the other, it was confirmed that the AO's disallowance was based on conjectures.

The Tribunal held that the purchases were indeed bogus, as confirmed by the authorities below. However, it found it inappropriate to reduce the disallowance already granted by the Assessing Officer, thus restoring the AO's order.

While the purchases were found to be bogus, the disallowance was restricted to 12.5% of the bogus purchase amount because the sales were not doubted. This was considered to meet the ends of justice.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, allowing a disallowance of 12.5% out of the bogus purchases, considering it would serve the ends of justice. The assessee's counsel did not press the matter further.

The Tribunal confirmed the disallowance of 12.5% of the bogus purchases, considering it to meet the ends of justice in similar cases. This decision aligns with previous Mumbai Tribunal rulings following the Gujarat High Court's decision in Simit P Seth.

The Tribunal held that while the purchases were not entirely genuine, a 100% disallowance was not justified as the sales were not doubted. It reduced the disallowance to 12.5% of the bogus purchases to meet the ends of justice.

The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's addition. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on a specific ground challenging the applicability of Shri Mukesh Choksi's statement and the AO's reliance on it.

The Tribunal held that while the purchases were indeed bogus, a 100% disallowance is not justified when sales are not doubted. Therefore, the disallowance was restricted to 12.5% of the bogus purchases to meet the ends of justice.

The Tribunal found that while the purchases were bogus, a 100% disallowance was not justified when sales were not doubted. Following precedent, the disallowance was restricted to 12.5% of the bogus purchases.

The Tribunal found that while the purchases were bogus, a 100% disallowance was not justified when sales were not doubted. Following precedent, the disallowance was restricted to 12.5% of the bogus purchases.