What is CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

If an assessee makes purchases from bogus parties, but the underlying goods are genuinely acquired and sold, only the profit margin embedded in such purchases, and not the entire value of the bogus purchases, should be added to the assessee's income.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd.?

712 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd. (355 ITR 290), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 148, Section 147, Section 37(1), Section 153A, Section 132.

CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd. (355 ITR 290)

ACIT 26 (2), Mumbai vs. Perfect Garments Processors, Mumbai

In the result, for ay 2009-10 appeal of the learned

ITA 6590/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri RA Dhyani, DRFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Punmiya, AR

Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA No. 6590/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2010-11) The Asst. Commissioner Of Perfect Garments Processors Income Tax- 26(2), 1, Mansukh Comp, Kanjur Room No. 320, 3rd Floor, Village Road, Opp. Nitco Vs. Kautilya Bhawan, B.K.C. Marble Land, Kanjur (East), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 042 (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 6579/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2010-11) Perfect Garments Processors The Asst. Commissioner Of 1, Mansukh Comp, Kanjur Income Tax- 26(2), Room No. 320, 3rd Floor, Village…

Perfect Garments Processors, Mumbai vs. ITO 29 (2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, for ay 2009-10 appeal of the learned

ITA 6580/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri RA Dhyani, DRFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Punmiya, AR

Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA No. 6590/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2010-11) The Asst. Commissioner Of Perfect Garments Processors Income Tax- 26(2), 1, Mansukh Comp, Kanjur Room No. 320, 3rd Floor, Village Road, Opp. Nitco Vs. Kautilya Bhawan, B.K.C. Marble Land, Kanjur (East), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 042 (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 6579/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2010-11) Perfect Garments Processors The Asst. Commissioner Of 1, Mansukh Comp, Kanjur Income Tax- 26(2), Room No. 320, 3rd Floor, Village…

Perfect Garment Processors, Mumbai vs. ITO 29(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, for ay 2009-10 appeal of the learned

ITA 6579/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm

For Appellant: Shri RA Dhyani, DRFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Punmiya, AR

Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM ITA No. 6590/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2010-11) The Asst. Commissioner Of Perfect Garments Processors Income Tax- 26(2), 1, Mansukh Comp, Kanjur Room No. 320, 3rd Floor, Village Road, Opp. Nitco Vs. Kautilya Bhawan, B.K.C. Marble Land, Kanjur (East), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 042 (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No. 6579/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2010-11) Perfect Garments Processors The Asst. Commissioner Of 1, Mansukh Comp, Kanjur Income Tax- 26(2), Room No. 320, 3rd Floor, Village…

ITO Ward-3(1), Mumbai vs. Bharat Chunilal Doshi, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 591/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 69C

…tire purchases but only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to the income of the assessee. Similar view has been taken by the Gujarat High Court in the cases of Vijay M Mistry Construction Pvt Ltd(355 ITR 498), Bholanath Polyfab(P) Ltd (355 ITR 290) and Vijay Proteins Ltd. ( 58 taxmann 44) Considering the facts of case and in view of various decisions as discussed above, it is held that only profit element of 18.45% embedded in the bogus purchases of Rs. 10,96,581/- that is Rs. 2,02,320/- is to be added to the income of appellant. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 2,02,320/- is confirmed and…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3), Surat vs. Dirgh Diamond, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 764/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court) The Dy. Cit, M/S Dirgh Diamond, Circle-3(3), 53-54, Plot No. 4, Vs Surat. Matawadi, Varachha Road, Surat. Pan: Aahfd1949C Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee

Section 133(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Hearing in Virtual Court) The Dy. CIT, M/s Dirgh Diamond, Circle-3(3), 53-54, Plot No. 4, Vs Surat. Matawadi, Varachha Road, Surat. PAN: AAHFD1949C Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Ritesh Mishra – CIT(DR) 04/03/2022 Date of hearing 04/03/2022 Date of pronouncement PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the Assessee is directed against order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, (hereinafter referred as “ld. CIT(…

DCIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S B. Chopda Construction P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is Partly Allowed

ITA 1513/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1513/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit-9(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. B. Chopda Construction Room No.665A, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, A-208, Sagar Tech Plaza, Churchgate, Mumbai- Sakinaka Junction, Andheri, 400020. Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb4214G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohan Tandon Revenue By: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “11. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Suppressed Profit To The Extent Of 12.50% Of Bogus Purchases, When The Assessee Could Not Produce Any Parties Or Evidence That The Said Goods Were Purchased A.Y.2012-13 & The Onus Of Proving Genuineness Of Purchases Was Not Discharged By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Mohan TandonFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. AR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147

…nt is Partly Allowed.” 5. On appraisal of the above mentioned finding, we noticed that the CIT(A) has restricted the addition to the extent of 12.5% of the bogus purchase on the basis of the decision in the case of Bholanath Ployfab Pvt. 29 A.Y.2012-13 Ltd. 355 ITR 290 (Guj), Vijay Proteins 58 ITD 428 & CIT Vs. Simit P. Sheth (2013) 38 Taxmann.com 385 (Guj) etc., which have been discussed above while deciding the issue. The CIT(A) has also kept in mind about the profit embedded in the bogus purchase. The addition has been restricted on the basis of the above mentioned law which nowhere seems unjustifiable. Taki…

Rr Carwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 9158/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

…Aman Enterprise were found at the given address as per report of Inspector of Income Tax. The AR provided a copy of such report. For the sake of ready reference, the same is reproduced below: 8.4. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. 355 ITR 290 (Guj), held that in such cases 24 ITA.Nos.9153 to 9158/Del./2019 M/s. R R Carwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. where the sales cannot be discarded, the issue would boil down to finding out the element of suppressed profit embedded in purchases which the appellant would have made from some unknown or bogus entities. 8.5 Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in…

Rr Carwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 9157/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

…Aman Enterprise were found at the given address as per report of Inspector of Income Tax. The AR provided a copy of such report. For the sake of ready reference, the same is reproduced below: 8.4. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. 355 ITR 290 (Guj), held that in such cases 24 ITA.Nos.9153 to 9158/Del./2019 M/s. R R Carwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. where the sales cannot be discarded, the issue would boil down to finding out the element of suppressed profit embedded in purchases which the appellant would have made from some unknown or bogus entities. 8.5 Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in…

Rr Carwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 9156/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

…Aman Enterprise were found at the given address as per report of Inspector of Income Tax. The AR provided a copy of such report. For the sake of ready reference, the same is reproduced below: 8.4. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. 355 ITR 290 (Guj), held that in such cases 24 ITA.Nos.9153 to 9158/Del./2019 M/s. R R Carwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. where the sales cannot be discarded, the issue would boil down to finding out the element of suppressed profit embedded in purchases which the appellant would have made from some unknown or bogus entities. 8.5 Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in…

Rr Carwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 9155/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

…Aman Enterprise were found at the given address as per report of Inspector of Income Tax. The AR provided a copy of such report. For the sake of ready reference, the same is reproduced below: 8.4. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. 355 ITR 290 (Guj), held that in such cases 24 ITA.Nos.9153 to 9158/Del./2019 M/s. R R Carwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. where the sales cannot be discarded, the issue would boil down to finding out the element of suppressed profit embedded in purchases which the appellant would have made from some unknown or bogus entities. 8.5 Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in…

Rr Carwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 9154/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

…Aman Enterprise were found at the given address as per report of Inspector of Income Tax. The AR provided a copy of such report. For the sake of ready reference, the same is reproduced below: 8.4. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. 355 ITR 290 (Guj), held that in such cases 24 ITA.Nos.9153 to 9158/Del./2019 M/s. R R Carwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. where the sales cannot be discarded, the issue would boil down to finding out the element of suppressed profit embedded in purchases which the appellant would have made from some unknown or bogus entities. 8.5 Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in…

Rr Carwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for AY

ITA 9153/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, C.A. &For Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153A

…Aman Enterprise were found at the given address as per report of Inspector of Income Tax. The AR provided a copy of such report. For the sake of ready reference, the same is reproduced below: 8.4. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. 355 ITR 290 (Guj), held that in such cases 24 ITA.Nos.9153 to 9158/Del./2019 M/s. R R Carwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. where the sales cannot be discarded, the issue would boil down to finding out the element of suppressed profit embedded in purchases which the appellant would have made from some unknown or bogus entities. 8.5 Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in…

ITO Ward-3(1), Kalyan vs. Jeeju Nair, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1187/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 133(6)

…ITA No. 313 of 2013) has held that only the profit attributable to the unaccounted sales can be brought to tax. Similar view has been taken by the Gujarat High Court in the cases of Vijay M Mistry Construction Pvt Ltd (355 ITR 498), Bholanath Polyfab (P) Ltd (355 ITR 290) and Vijay Proteins Ltd (58 taxmann 44). The Hon'ble Ahmedabad ITAT, in the case of Simit P Sheh v/s ITO, in ITA No. 3238 and 3293/Ahd/2009 has held that "the malpractice of bogus purchase is mainly to save 10% sales tax etc. It has a/so been informed that in this industry about 2 5% is the profit margin. Therefore, respectfully the decisions of…

ITO Ward - 3(1), Kalyan vs. Bharat Valabhbhai Valiya, Dombivli

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 593/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 593/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Ito, Ward – 3(1) Bharat Valabhbhai Valiya 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Prop. Of M/S. Industrial Vs. Murbad Road, Kalyan Switchgear, B-10, Gurudatta (West)-421301. Tower, Pandurangwadi, Manpada Road, Dombivli (E), 421201. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agbpv1605R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Ms. Bhoomika Patel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 26.02.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -01, Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Thane Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 6,56,771/- Out Of The Total Addition Of Rs. 7,50,595/- Made On Account Of Bogus Purchases, Despite Holding That The Purchases Were Not A.Y.2010-11 Genuine & The Assessee Failed To Prove Genuineness Of The Transactions.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Bhoomika Patel

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE OM PRAKASH KANT, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 593/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ ITO, Ward – 3(1) Bharat Valabhbhai Valiya 2nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Prop. Of M/s. Industrial Vs. Murbad Road, Kalyan Switchgear, B-10, Gurudatta (West)-421301. Tower, Pandurangwadi, Manpada Road, Dombivli (E), 421201. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AGBPV1605R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: None Revenue by: Ms. Bhoomika Patel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 02/12/2021 घोषणा क…

ITO WD 3(1), Kalyan vs. Potdar Ajit Krishnaji (HUF, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 592/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 592/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिधम/ Ito, Ward-3(1) Potdar Ajit Krishnaji (Huf) 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, V Krishna Steel Trading, Vs. Murbad Road, Kalyan (W) Vijay Baug, Varap Village, 421301. Murbad Road, Kalyan (W)- 421301. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaehp2434D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Sanjiv Brahme Revenue By: Ms. Bhoomika Patel सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 03.02.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -01, Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “A) Grounds Of Appeal 1. The Learned Income Tai Officer Has Erred In Reopening The Assessment U/S 148. A.Y.2010-11 Without Prejudice To The Above

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv BrahmeFor Respondent: Ms. Bhoomika Patel

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 69C

…re purchases but only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to the income of the assessee. Similar view has been taken by the Gujarat High Court in the cases of Vijay M Mistry Construction Pvt Ltd (355 ITR 498), Bholanath Polyfab (P) Ltd (355 ITR 290) and Vijay Proteins Ltd (58 taxmann 44). 4 A.Y.2010-11 5.3.2 The Hon’ble Ahmedabad ITAT, in the case of Simit P Sheh v/s ITO, in ITA No. 3238 and 3293/Ahd/2009 has held that “the malpractice of bogus purchase is mainly to save 10% sales tax etc. It has also been informed that in this industry about 2.5% is the profit margin. Therefore, respectfu…

Kamlesh T. Bhansali, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-19(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1592/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…not in dispute that sales have been accepted as genuine from out of these purchases. When the sales have been accepted as genuine the entire purchases cannot be treated as non-genuine. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd [355 ITR 290] held that when the assessee made purchases and sold the finished goods as a natural corollary not the entire amount covered under such purchases would be subject to tax but only the profit element embedded therein. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Seth [38 taxman.com 385]. Simply becaus…

Kamlesh T. Bhansali, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1591/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…not in dispute that sales have been accepted as genuine from out of these purchases. When the sales have been accepted as genuine the entire purchases cannot be treated as non-genuine. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd [355 ITR 290] held that when the assessee made purchases and sold the finished goods as a natural corollary not the entire amount covered under such purchases would be subject to tax but only the profit element embedded therein. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Seth [38 taxman.com 385]. Simply becaus…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Pilot Industries Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 3263/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and ShriFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Charudahry, CIT

Section 132

…at against the order of Hon’ble High Court the department filed SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by revenue which is reported at 320 ITR 17 (St) (SC). In the case of CIT v BHOLANATH POLYFAB (P) LTD (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj) disallowance of purchases was made holding them to be bogus. The Hon’ble ITAT deleted the addition. The Hon’ble High Court uphold the order of ITAT deleting the addition made holding that since the impugned purchases have been sold and sales having been accepted, there was no rationale for disallowing the purchases. In the case of INCOME-TA…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Pilot Industries Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 3262/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and ShriFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Charudahry, CIT

Section 132

…at against the order of Hon’ble High Court the department filed SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP filed by revenue which is reported at 320 ITR 17 (St) (SC). In the case of CIT v BHOLANATH POLYFAB (P) LTD (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj) disallowance of purchases was made holding them to be bogus. The Hon’ble ITAT deleted the addition. The Hon’ble High Court uphold the order of ITAT deleting the addition made holding that since the impugned purchases have been sold and sales having been accepted, there was no rationale for disallowing the purchases. In the case of INCOME-TA…

Neon Metals Impex Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2869/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vinay Sinha, D.R. &

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

…which was complied with by the assessee by furnishing various documents such as purchase bills, bank statements, challans etc. The AO finally, after following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bolanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 390 (Guj.) and also another decision in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth – 356 ITR 451 (Guj.), applied a rate of 12.5% on the bogus purchases of Rs.1,05,98,219/- and thus added a sum of Rs.13,24,777/- to the income of the assessee in the assessment framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act vide order dated 18.03.2016. The Ld. A.R…

CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd.

What is CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd.

ACIT 26 (2), Mumbai vs. Perfect Garments Processors, Mumbai

Perfect Garments Processors, Mumbai vs. ITO 29 (2)(5), Mumbai

Perfect Garment Processors, Mumbai vs. ITO 29(2)(5), Mumbai

ITO Ward-3(1), Mumbai vs. Bharat Chunilal Doshi, Mumbai

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(3), Surat vs. Dirgh Diamond, Surat

DCIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S B. Chopda Construction P. Ltd., Mumbai

Rr Carwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

Rr Carwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

Rr Carwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

Rr Carwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

Rr Carwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

Rr Carwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-4, New Delhi

ITO Ward-3(1), Kalyan vs. Jeeju Nair, Mumbai

ITO Ward - 3(1), Kalyan vs. Bharat Valabhbhai Valiya, Dombivli

ITO WD 3(1), Kalyan vs. Potdar Ajit Krishnaji (HUF, Mumbai

Kamlesh T. Bhansali, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-19(2)(2), Mumbai

Kamlesh T. Bhansali, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(2)(2), Mumbai

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Pilot Industries Ltd., New Delhi

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Pilot Industries Ltd., New Delhi

Neon Metals Impex Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai