CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd.

355 ITR 290High Court2013#73 most cited

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.

712

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 371,939 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab · 355 ITR 290 · bogus purchases · accommodation entry · unexplained expenditure · profit margin · gross profit rate · section 37(1) · section 68 · section 153A · genuineness of purchases · entire purchases addition

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 147Section 37(1)Section 153ASection 132Section 133(6)Section 68

Issues it is cited on

section 292csection 44absection 69csection 131commissioner (appeals)section 132(4)accommodation entrysection 145section 37(1)section 133(6)escapement of incomeunexplained expenditure

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

Amulakh Hatichand Vora, Mumbai vs. JCIT RG 13(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2776/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Amulakh Hatichand Vora, Joint Commissioner Of Prop. Manhar Trading Vs. Income Tax, Range Corporation, 16/17, J.K. 13(1), Room No. 418, 4Th Chambers, 77/83, Nagdevi Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Street, Mumbai-400003 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020. Pan No. Aaapv5346C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. K. Gopal, Ar Revenue By : Mr. R.A. Dhynai, Dr Date Of Hearing : 15/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/05/2019

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. R.A. Dhynai, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Amulakh Hatichand Vora, Joint Commissioner of Prop. Manhar Trading Vs. Income Tax, Range Corporation, 16/17, J.K. 13(1), Room No. 418, 4th Chambers, 77/83, Nagdevi floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Street, Mumbai-400003 M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020. PAN No. AAAPV5346C Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. K. Gopal, AR Revenue by : Mr. R.A. Dhynai, DR Date of Hearing : 15/05/2019 Date of pronouncement: 24/05/2019 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an ap…

Asst CIT 25(3), Mumbai vs. Radiant Gems, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue and cross objection filed by the

ITA 4146/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha, Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit-25(3), M/S Radiant Gems, Room No.601, C-10, 6Th 701C, Gokul Divine, S.V. Road, बनाम/ Floor, Pratyakshakar Datta Wadi, Vile Parle West, Vs. Mumbai-400056 Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aajfr3662E Co No.153/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.4146/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Radiant Gems, Acit-25(3), 701C, Gokul Divine, S.V. Room No.601, C-10, 6Th Floor, बनाम/ Road, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bandra Vs. Datta Wadi, Vile Parle West, Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400056 Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aajfr3662E

Section 143(2)Section 40A(3)

…see. The estimation varies with the nature of business and no uniform yardstick could be adopted. 5.9 In this regard, it is apt to refer certain decisions dealing the similar issue. The decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt.Ltd. 355 ITR 290 (Guj) where the Hon'ble Court was battling with the finding of Hon'ble ITAT that purchases were made from bogus parties, nevertheless, the purchases themselves were not bogus as the entire quantity of opening stock, purchases and sales were tallying and hence, only the profit margin embedded in such amount would be subjected to tax. The Hon'ble G…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 15(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jyoti Switchgears Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 529/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Adj. Application-RejectedFor Respondent: Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh-Ld.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…ofit embedded in purchases which the assessee would have made by purchasing goods from some unknown entities. Finally, following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Simit P.Sheth [356 ITR 451] & CIT Vs. Bholanath Poly Fab. P. Ltd. [355 ITR 290], the impugned additions were restricted to 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases. Aggrieved, the revenue is in further appeal before us. 4. Upon careful consideration, we are of the considered opinion that there could be no sale without actual purchase of material keeping in view the assessee’s nature of business. The sales turnover was not disputed…

Chaganlal Pukhraj Parmar, Mumbai vs. ITO 29(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 5588/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Awanghi Gimson-Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…erefore, the addition was to be restricted to account for element of profit embedded in purchases. Finally, inter-alia, following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Simit P.Sheth [356 ITR 451] & CIT Vs. Bholanath Poly Fab. P. Ltd. [355 ITR 290], the impugned additions were restricted to 20% of alleged bogus purchases. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. The Ld. AR while contesting the reassessment proceedings, pleaded for reasonable estimation whereas Ld. DR submitted that the estimation was fair & reasonable. 5. We have carefully considered the same and delibera…

M/S.Authentiques Eyewear Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(1), Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 826/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Authentique Eye The Income Tax Officer, Wear P. Ltd. Row House Ward 4(1), Thane. Vs. No. 1, Opp. Paras Yamaha Centre, Ambadi Cross Road, Vasai Road, Thane- 401202. Pan No. Aaica1157H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Vinay N. Bhoir, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Satishchandra Rajore, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 13/05/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Vinay N. Bhoir, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Satishchandra Rajore, DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148

…ent embedded in such purchases can be added to the income of the assessee. The Hon’ble High Court referred to a similar view taken in the case of CIT vs. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 498 (Guj) and CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fab (P) Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 290 (Guj). Thus considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the AO to a estimate the profit @ 12.5% on such bogus purchases of Rs.37,17,321/- and bring to tax Rs.4,64,665/- only. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/05/2019. (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER…

Shree Govind Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 4(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3137/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Ms. Kusum Bansal
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…cordingly, I confirm the addition @ 50 % of disputed purchases i.e. Rs.6,42,290/-, and delete the balance disallowance of Rs. 6,42,290/-. Accordingly, the ground is partly allowed.” 7. 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. The Hon'ble High Court confirmed the order of the ITAT in estimating the profit element from purchases at 12.5%. Similar view has be…

Shree Govind Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Room No. 637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.Kroad, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3135/MUM/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Ms. Kusum Bansal
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…cordingly, I confirm the addition @ 50 % of disputed purchases i.e. Rs.6,42,290/-, and delete the balance disallowance of Rs. 6,42,290/-. Accordingly, the ground is partly allowed.” 7. 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. The Hon'ble High Court confirmed the order of the ITAT in estimating the profit element from purchases at 12.5%. Similar view has be…

Shree Govind Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 4(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3134/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Ms. Kusum Bansal
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…cordingly, I confirm the addition @ 50 % of disputed purchases i.e. Rs.6,42,290/-, and delete the balance disallowance of Rs. 6,42,290/-. Accordingly, the ground is partly allowed.” 7. 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. The Hon'ble High Court confirmed the order of the ITAT in estimating the profit element from purchases at 12.5%. Similar view has be…

M/S. Mansarovar Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Tehri Garhwal vs. ACIT, Haridwar

In the result the ground No

ITA 7022/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Mansarovar Infratech Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Income Tax, Garhwal Mandal Sales Pvt. Circle Haridwar Ltd.), Dhalwala, Tehsil Narendera Nagar, Tehri Garhwal Pan :Aaacg5220B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Respondent By Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr.Dr

Section 147Section 234B

…We are of the opinion that the entire amount should not be disallowed but the disallowance should be restricted to the profit margin embedded in such amount. This view is also supported by the judgment of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bhola Nath, 355 ITR 290. The relevant portion of the order is as under: “6. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal committed no error. Whether the purchases themselves were bogus or whether the parties from whom such purchases were allegedly made were bogus is essentially a question of fact. The Tribunal having examined the evidence on record came to the conclusion th…

Income Tax Officer Ward 25(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Amit B. Mody, Mumbai

Appeal stand partly allowed

ITA 420/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari-Ld. DR
Section 143Section 145(3)Section 147Section 3

…ary evidences etc. came to a conclusion that the rejection of books was not justified. At the same time, inter-alia, relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in CIT Vs. Simit P.Sheth [356 ITR 451] & CIT Vs. Bholanath Poly Fab. P. Ltd. [355 ITR 290], Ld. first appellate authority reduced the estimated additions to 12.5% as against 25% made by Ld. AO. The stand of Ld. first appellate authority has given rise to cross-appeals before us. 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative for Assessee [AR], Shri Vimal Punmiya, drew our attention to the fact that the assessee was dealing in low margin item li…

Dilip N. Thakkar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 27(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7441/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Ruchi M. Rathod-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari - Ld.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…veyance expenses, General expenses, office expenses & telephone expenses. 3. The Ld. first appellate authority, inter-alia, relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High court rendered in CIT Vs. Simit P. Sheth [356 ITR 451] & Bholanath Poly Fab. P. Ltd. [355 ITR 290], restricted the impugned additions to 12.5% but confirmed the stand of Ld. AO in making adhoc addition of Rs.76,490/- against petty cash expenditure. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative for Assessee [AR], submitted that the assessee was dealing in low margin item like iron & steel an…

Income Tax Officer 33(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Banwarilal Maheshwari, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 5563/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 33(1)(2) V. Shri Banwarilal Maheshwari Room No. 704, 7Th Floor, C-12, Row House No. 3, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Sheetal Nagar, Ashok Chakraborthy Cross Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Kandivali (East) Bandra(E), Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 101 Pan: Afypm 7592 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hitesh Shah Department By : Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar
Section 133(6)

…parties, stock register, delivery challans, lorry receipt, transportation details etc., and following the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Seth [356 ITR 451] and the decision in the case of Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd [355 ITR 290], Assessing Officer estimated the profit element @12.5% from such unverifiable purchases and added to the total income of the assessee. 6. Assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) considering the submissions of the assessee and the findings of the 4 Shri Banwarilal Maheshwari Assessing Officer sustained the action of th…

The Dy. CIT, (OSD)-I, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Kintech Synergy Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 2378/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Apr 2019AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)

…Tribunal needed no interference - Held, yes [Paras 6, 7 & 9] [In favour of assessee] Even in the case of the appellant firm the purchases though not verifiable the utilization of the material has been explained. iii. CIT v Bholanath Polyfab (P) Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj.):- Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 7967 - Undisclosed investments [Bogus purchases] - Assessment year 2005-06 - Assessee was engaged in business of trading in finished fabrics - Assessing Officer found that concerned parties from whom material was purchased were not found at their addresses and held that purchases made by assessee were b…

The Dy. CIT, (OSD)-I, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Kintech Synergy Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 2377/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Apr 2019AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)

…Tribunal needed no interference - Held, yes [Paras 6, 7 & 9] [In favour of assessee] Even in the case of the appellant firm the purchases though not verifiable the utilization of the material has been explained. iii. CIT v Bholanath Polyfab (P) Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj.):- Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 7967 - Undisclosed investments [Bogus purchases] - Assessment year 2005-06 - Assessee was engaged in business of trading in finished fabrics - Assessing Officer found that concerned parties from whom material was purchased were not found at their addresses and held that purchases made by assessee were b…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3, Mumbai vs. Unitop Aquacare, Mumbai

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

ITA 566/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P. Meena, Hon'Blea.C.I.T Circle – 3 V. M/S. Unitop Aquacare Room No.2, 6Th Floor, 501, 5Th Floor, Dosti Pinnacle, Ashar I.T. Park, M.I.D.C, Plot No. E/7, Road No. 22, Wagle Industrial Estate, Mic, Wagle Estate, Thane, Mumbai – 400 604 Thane (W) – 400 604 Pan: Aabfu 6592 L (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Unitop Aquacare D.C.I.T Circle – 3 V. 501, 5Th Floor, Dosti Pinnacle, 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Plot No. E/7, Road No. 22, Road No. 16-Z Mic, Wagle Estate, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W) - 400604 Thane, Mumbai – 400 604 Pan: Aabfu 6592 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Devendra Jain Department By : Shri Rajiv Gubgotra

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Gubgotra
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…not responded and therefore, the Assessing Officer treated the entire purchases as non-genuine. Ld.CIT(A) considering the submissions and the evidences produced by the assessee and referring to the decision in the case of CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt. Ltd., [355 ITR 290 (Guj.)] and Sanjay Oil Cake Industries v. CIT [316 ITR 274] estimated the penalty levied @25% since the assessee being a manufacturer. 7. 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 covere…

Unitop Aquacare, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3, Mumbai

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

ITA 7397/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P. Meena, Hon'Blea.C.I.T Circle – 3 V. M/S. Unitop Aquacare Room No.2, 6Th Floor, 501, 5Th Floor, Dosti Pinnacle, Ashar I.T. Park, M.I.D.C, Plot No. E/7, Road No. 22, Wagle Industrial Estate, Mic, Wagle Estate, Thane, Mumbai – 400 604 Thane (W) – 400 604 Pan: Aabfu 6592 L (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Unitop Aquacare D.C.I.T Circle – 3 V. 501, 5Th Floor, Dosti Pinnacle, 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Plot No. E/7, Road No. 22, Road No. 16-Z Mic, Wagle Estate, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W) - 400604 Thane, Mumbai – 400 604 Pan: Aabfu 6592 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Devendra Jain Department By : Shri Rajiv Gubgotra

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Gubgotra
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…not responded and therefore, the Assessing Officer treated the entire purchases as non-genuine. Ld.CIT(A) considering the submissions and the evidences produced by the assessee and referring to the decision in the case of CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt. Ltd., [355 ITR 290 (Guj.)] and Sanjay Oil Cake Industries v. CIT [316 ITR 274] estimated the penalty levied @25% since the assessee being a manufacturer. 7. 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 covere…

Precision Contaneurs Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 13(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5379/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Precision Containuers Ltd. Dcit-13(1)(2) 3Rd Floor, Mittal Tower, B Wing 401, Court Chamber Vs. S.V. Road, Borivali (W) Nariman Point Mumbai-400 092 Mumbai-400 021

For Appellant: Shri Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Shri Bharti Singh
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

…4. In the appellate proceedings the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of AO by following decisions of various coordinate benches including the Ahmedabad Bench in the case of Vijay proteins Ltd vs ACIT (1996) 58 ITD 428 (Ahd), CIT vs. Bolanath Ply Fab P. Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290(Guj) and thus justified the addition at the rate of 12.5% on the ground that the AO has only added profit embedded in the said bogus purchases and not added the entire bogus purchases. 5. After hearing both the parties and perused the material available on record, we observed that the assessee is manufacturing Steel drums. The undisputed facts a…

Vega Jeweldiam Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. - 13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1050/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharvega Jeweldiam Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle-13(3)(2), Unit No.1108, Ii Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, A Wing, The Capital, G Block Churchgate, Plot, 70, Bharat Nagar, Mumbai-400021. Vs. Bandra (East),Mumbai-400051. Pan: Aaacd9989Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Vijay Kumar Biyani (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act (‘Act’) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar Biyani (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (DR)
Section 253Section 254(1)

…ise, the disallowance of purchases is clearly in order. The action of the assessing officer of disallowing a percentage of impugned purchases is in line with the view expressed in the decisions such as in the case of CIT vs. Bholanath PolyFab Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 and thereafter in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth (2013) 219 Taxman 85 (Gu]. 4.5. It is noted that there is nothing distinguishable to identify the sales as corresponding to the purchases. However, the submission that the margin on trading in polished diamonds is low is supported by the report of the Task Group for Diamond Sector submitted to…

Jitendra Roopraj Mehta, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, all the three appeals of assessee are

ITA 442/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…o double taxation of the same income. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law Learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal even though concurring with the appellants contention of decision of CIT vs. BHOLANATH POLY FAB PVT.LTD.(2012) 355 ITR 290 (GUJ) that it is the profit clement embedded in such URD purchases which is subject to tax and in support himself relied upon a number decisions of Tribunals and High courts whereby G.P addition of 5% to 25% embedded in such purchases was upheld considering the past G.P trend of the Assessee's in those cases, but failed to appreciate the crux of…

Jitendra Roopraj Mehta, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, all the three appeals of assessee are

ITA 441/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…o double taxation of the same income. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law Learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal even though concurring with the appellants contention of decision of CIT vs. BHOLANATH POLY FAB PVT.LTD.(2012) 355 ITR 290 (GUJ) that it is the profit clement embedded in such URD purchases which is subject to tax and in support himself relied upon a number decisions of Tribunals and High courts whereby G.P addition of 5% to 25% embedded in such purchases was upheld considering the past G.P trend of the Assessee's in those cases, but failed to appreciate the crux of…