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)

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

In the result, all the three appeals of assessee are

ITA 440/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

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…

M/S G. D. Enterprise, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-40, Kolkata

In the result, we dismiss both the appeal of the assessee as well of Revenue

ITA 585/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 M/S G.D. Enterprise V/S. Acit, Circle-40 1/H/1, Raja Janmenjoy 3, Government Place Road, Kolkata-700010 (West), Kolkat- [Pan No.Aacfg 4533 A] 700001 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri J.M. Thard, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sourav Kumar, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-01-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-03-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata’S Order Dated 31.12.2015, Passed In Case No.1046/Cit(A)-13/Kol/Cir-45/2014-15, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Ground Seeks To Reverse Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Treating Its Purchases Amounting To ₹3,39,04,027/- As Bogus In Assessment As Affirmed In Lower Appellate Proceedings. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Under:- “5. Decision 5.1 Appellant'S Submission & Facts Available On Record Is Carefully Considered. The Assessee Has Argued That It Had Made All Payments Through Account Payee Cheque & From Your Petitioner Site There Is No Mistake As Per Law & Income Tax Act. So The Disallowance Of Purchase Against Payment Through Account Payee Cheque Would Not Be False & It May Be Accepted

Section 143(3)

…hout the purchases. In short, if there is a sale, then it is required to the presumed that there is a corresponding purchase against each such sale and moreover, in impugned case, there is a direct nexus of sales with the purchases. [38 Taxmann.com 385 (Guj), 355 ITR 290 (Guj), 263 ITR 610 (MP), 304 ITR 52 (MP), 258 ITR 654 (Gu)); As per comparative chart of sales vis-a-vis purchase (copy enclosed), it is evident that each purchase corresponds to the sales. For example : The purchase of 257 pairs of footwear made vide bill no 16 on 17th September, 2009 aggregating to Rs. 126,333 from Deep Enterprises were sold on…

Indira Devi Patodia, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 44(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1031/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148

…added and only the profit embedded in the sale can at the best be added. I note that the assessee has shown the gross profit @ 10.25%. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in a similar case reported in CIT Vs. Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt. Ltd. 355 ITR 290 (Guj.) and CIT Vs. Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 451 (Guj.), I consider the GP @ 15% would be reasonable on the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, I direct the AO to delete the addition and to compute GP @ 15% thus, this ground of appeal of assessee is partly allowed. 5. In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed. Order is pr…

ACIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Skyway Constructon Co., Mumbai

ITA 5865/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar

Section 143(1)Section 145(3)

…ld boil down to finding out the element of profit embedded in bogus purchases which the appellant would have made from some unknown entities. 6.16 In this regard, it is apt to refer to decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt. Ltd. 355 ITR 290 (Guj) wherein the Northle Court was battling with the finding of Hon’ble ITAT that purchases were made from bogus parties since notice issued by the AO to those parties were allegedly received 'returned/unserved' and the assessee was unable to produce any confirmation from these parties. The Tribunal had held that though purchases were made from…

Adarsh Kaul, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 31(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5906/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Adarsh Kaul C/O Vav Assistant Commissioner Airconditioning Unit No. 2, Of Income Tax 31(1), Vs. It Park, Techniplex-Ii, Room No. 110, C-13, Junction Of Veer Savarkar Pratyakshakarbhavan, Flyover, Sv Road, Goregaon Bandrakurla Complex, Mumbai-400062. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Ahrpk7595A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. M.N. Nandgaonkar, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/01/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2019

For Appellant: Mr. M.N. Nandgaonkar, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 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). 6.1 Having regard to the above decision, we are of the considered view that the profit embedded in the disputed purchases be brought to tax. Consequently, we direct the AO to estimate the profit @ 12.5% of the disputed purchase amount of Rs.11,83,913/- and bring the resultant amount to tax. 7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. O…

Sharma Egg Supplier, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward - 2(3), Siliguri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1846/KOL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Dec 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1846/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2015-16

Section 40A(3)Section 69C

…entire purchase cannot be added and only the profit embedded in the sales can be added. We note that the assessee has shown the GP @ 3.5%. Relying on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in a similar case reported as CIT Vs. Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt. Ltd. 355 ITR 290 (Guj.) and CIT Vs. Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 451 (Guj), we consider the GP @ 5% would be sufficient in the facts and circumstances of the case for the interest of justice in this case. Therefore, this ground of appeal of assessee is partly allowed. 4. Ground no. 2 of assessee’s appeal is against the action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of…

Shri Nilesh Rameshchandra Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-12, Now Dy. CIT, Circle-6(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 3131/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3131/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Dhiren Shah, A.R

…suppliers was not provided despite requests. In these circumstances, we find considerable merit in the case of the assessee in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Gujarat Ambuja Exports (supra); CIT vs. Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt. Ltd. 355 ITR 290 (Guj) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Tejua Rohitkumar Kapadia arising out of the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Tax Appeal No.691 of 2017, judgment dated 18.09.2017. In view of the facts recorded, it is difficult to dispute the quantitative aspects of the purchases made. This leaves us to the…

Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. Th Zone Projects, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2617/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit-16(3), M/S Th Zone Projects, Room No.446, 705, B Wingh, Cosmic बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Heights, Bhakti Park, Near Vs. M. K. Road, Imax, Wadala, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400035 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aafft1015R

Section 69C

…med. Hon'ble Apex Court in Kachwala Gems vs JCIT (2007) 158 taxman 71 observed that an element of guesswork is inevitable in cases, where estimation of income is warranted. 2.2 The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT vs Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj.) held/observed as under:- “5. Having come to such a conclusion, however, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the purchases may have been made from bogus parties, nevertheless, the purchases themselves were not bogus. The Tribunal adverted to the facts and data on record and came to assessee. Therefore, the purchases of the entire 1,02,514…

Shri Jignesh V. Parekh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 27(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1283/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Jignesh V. Parekh A-6, Ito, Ward 27(1)(5), Munisuvrat Darshan, Mumbai, Vashi Vs. Navroj Lanee, Ghatkopar Railway Station (West), Mumbai-400086. Complex, Tower No. 6, 4Th Floor, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703. Pan No. Aacpp3869L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Rajeev Gubegotra, Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/10/2018

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Rajeev Gubegotra, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

…embedded in such purchases can be added to the income of the assessee. The Hon’ble High Court has 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). In the instant case, the Ld. CIT(A) has adopted the correct approach to arrive at the profit by estimating it @ 12.5% of the impugned amount of Rs.60,67,516/- shown from the alleged hawala parties. Thus we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) restricting the addition to Rs.7,58,440/-. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounc…

ITO WD 2(3), Thane vs. Jayesh Jamnadas Fifadra, Thane

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 4215/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Jayesh J Fifadra, Income Tax Officer-2(3), A-406 Vinit Apartment, Thane. Room No. 13, B-Wing, Vs. Caption Sameer Road, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Dhanukarwadikandiwali Wagle Industrial Estate Road (West)-Pin Code-400067 No. 16-Z, Thane (W)-400604 Pan No. Aagpf9872R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-2(3), Shri Jayesh J Fifadra A- Thane. Room No. 13, B- 406 Vinit Apartment, Vs. Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Caption Sameer Road, Park Wagle Industrial Dhanukar Wadikandiwali Estate Road No. 16-Z, (West)-Pin Code-400067 Thane (W)-400604 Pan No. Aagpf9872R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Rajeev Gubegotra, Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/10/2018

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Rajeev Gubegotra, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…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). Shri Jayesh J. Fifadra In the instant case, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly followed the above decision in Simit P. Sheth (supra) and restricted the disallowance to 12.5% of the unproved purchases of Rs.2,15,55,520/- which amounts to Rs.26,94,440/-. We uphold the above order of the Ld. CIT(A). 9. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed.…

Jayesh J Fifadra, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Thane, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 4207/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Jayesh J Fifadra, Income Tax Officer-2(3), A-406 Vinit Apartment, Thane. Room No. 13, B-Wing, Vs. Caption Sameer Road, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Dhanukarwadikandiwali Wagle Industrial Estate Road (West)-Pin Code-400067 No. 16-Z, Thane (W)-400604 Pan No. Aagpf9872R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-2(3), Shri Jayesh J Fifadra A- Thane. Room No. 13, B- 406 Vinit Apartment, Vs. Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Caption Sameer Road, Park Wagle Industrial Dhanukar Wadikandiwali Estate Road No. 16-Z, (West)-Pin Code-400067 Thane (W)-400604 Pan No. Aagpf9872R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Rajeev Gubegotra, Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/10/2018

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Rajeev Gubegotra, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…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). Shri Jayesh J. Fifadra In the instant case, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly followed the above decision in Simit P. Sheth (supra) and restricted the disallowance to 12.5% of the unproved purchases of Rs.2,15,55,520/- which amounts to Rs.26,94,440/-. We uphold the above order of the Ld. CIT(A). 9. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed.…