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)

Hanumanthappa Pathrera Laxmana, Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-(1) & Tps, Shimogga

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 247/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Atul K Alur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, JCIT (DR)

Section 145(3)Section 69C

…proach of the AO in disallowing entire alleged purchases cannot be sustained. It is illogical to accept sales of ₹54.66 crores and simultaneously reject all purchases. As held in CIT v. Simit P. Sheth [356 ITR 451 (Guj.)] and CIT v. Bholanath Polyfab Pvt Ltd [355 ITR 290 (Guj.)], in cases where sales are accepted but purchases are doubtful, only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be taxed. 8.1 The reliance on NK Industries Ltd. by the Revenue is distinguishable because in that case even sales were disbelieved and no evidence of movement of goods was produced. Here, sales are undisputed, GST return…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 & Tps, Shivamogga vs. Hanumanthappa Pathrera Laxmana, Shivamogga

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed whereas the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1066/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Atul K Alur, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, JCIT (DR)

Section 145(3)Section 69C

…proach of the AO in disallowing entire alleged purchases cannot be sustained. It is illogical to accept sales of ₹54.66 crores and simultaneously reject all purchases. As held in CIT v. Simit P. Sheth [356 ITR 451 (Guj.)] and CIT v. Bholanath Polyfab Pvt Ltd [355 ITR 290 (Guj.)], in cases where sales are accepted but purchases are doubtful, only the profit element embedded in such purchases can be taxed. 8.1 The reliance on NK Industries Ltd. by the Revenue is distinguishable because in that case even sales were disbelieved and no evidence of movement of goods was produced. Here, sales are undisputed, GST return…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Kanpur vs. Shri.Mohammad Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 144/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…he alleged bogus purchase of Rs.1,56,78,802/- will be disallowed. This ground taken by the Revenue is rejected; whereas the ground of appeal taken by the assessee is partly allowed. h. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt. Ltd. 355 ITR 290 (Guj) was battling with the finding of Hon’ble ITAT that purchases were made from bogus parties. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that whether purchases themselves were bogus or whether parties from whom such purchases were made were bogus, is essentially a question of fact and the Tribunal having examined the evidence on record and concluded…

Mohd. Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur vs. Deputi Commissioner of Income Tax CC-2, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 139/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…he alleged bogus purchase of Rs.1,56,78,802/- will be disallowed. This ground taken by the Revenue is rejected; whereas the ground of appeal taken by the assessee is partly allowed. h. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt. Ltd. 355 ITR 290 (Guj) was battling with the finding of Hon’ble ITAT that purchases were made from bogus parties. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that whether purchases themselves were bogus or whether parties from whom such purchases were made were bogus, is essentially a question of fact and the Tribunal having examined the evidence on record and concluded…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2, Trichy, Income Tax Office vs. Ramasamy Sivaprakasam, Karur

ITA 1267/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. M.K. Rangaswamy, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 37Section 37(1)

…the assessee. So much is clear by the decision of this court. In particular, the court has also taken a similar view in the case of CIT v. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 498 (Guj) and in the case of CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab (P.) Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 290 (Guj). The view taken by the Tribunal in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asstt.CIT [1996] 58 ITD 428 (Ahd.) came to be approved. 8. If the entire purchases were wholly bogus and there was a finding of fact on record that no purchases were made at all, counsel for the Revenue would be justified in arguing that the entire amount of such bogus p…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Office, Trichy vs. Ramasamy Sivaprakasam, Karur

ITA 1266/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. M.K. Rangaswamy, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 37Section 37(1)

…the assessee. So much is clear by the decision of this court. In particular, the court has also taken a similar view in the case of CIT v. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 498 (Guj) and in the case of CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab (P.) Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 290 (Guj). The view taken by the Tribunal in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asstt.CIT [1996] 58 ITD 428 (Ahd.) came to be approved. 8. If the entire purchases were wholly bogus and there was a finding of fact on record that no purchases were made at all, counsel for the Revenue would be justified in arguing that the entire amount of such bogus p…

ITO-19(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Kobe Steel India, Mumbai

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

ITA 5623/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 69C

…o be made @ 100% in the bogus purchase cases. 13. On the contrary, the Ld. A.R. has claimed that the decision of the Ld. Commissioner is based on the judgment of the same High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 051 and Bholenath Fab Pvt. Ltd. 355 ITR 290 (Guj.) as mentioned by the Ld. Commissioner in para number 5.9 of the impugned order and therefore the appeal of the Revenue Department is liable to be dismissed. 14. We have given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It is a settled law, as observed by the Ld. Commissioner that the estimation varies with…

Jewels Emporium A Legacy, Jaipur vs. ACIT, CC-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1215/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT,Sr.-DR a

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…see has not proved the genuineness of the purchases and sales, yet if the AO has accepted the sales, the entire purchases cannot be disallowed. Only the profit element embedded in purchases would be subjected to tax and not the entire amount (BholanathPolyfab 355 ITR 290 (Guj) followed, Kaveri Rice Mills 157 Taxman 376 (All) & La Medica 250 ITR 575 (Del) referred) PCIT vs. Pinaki D. Panani (Bombay High Court) ITA No. 1543 of 2017 S. 68/ 69C Bogus purchases: Even if the purchases made by the assessee are to be treated as bogus, it does not mean that entire amount can be disallowed. As the AO did not dispute the co…

Santosh Laujari Gupta, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer - 33(3)(3), Kautilya Bhavan

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

ITA 2971/MUM/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Santosh Laujari Gupta Ito, Ward-33(3)(3), Mumbai A-801, Raj Heights, M G Road, Near Vs Vora Colony, Kandivali West, Mumbai-400067. [Pan No. Adupg8487C] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 254(1)

…ld. CIT(A) after 5 Santosh Laujari Gupta considering the submission of assessee upheld the action of assessing officer. The ld. CIT(A) also referred the decision of Gujarat High Court in CIT vs Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 0451 and Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt. Ltd. 355 ITR 290 and Sanjay Oil Cake Industries 316 ITR 274 (Guj) wherein profit element of 12.5% was sustained and held that assessing officer has fairly estimated margin at 10%. On considering all such decision as referred by ld. CIT(A), I find that in all such decisions the subject matter of disallowances was the component of alleged bogus purchases and not…

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir, 20(1), Mumbai vs. Anil Monshi Shah, Mumbai

In the result, ground of

ITA 2094/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Ms. Padmavathy S(Physical Hearing) Acit, Circle – 20(1), Mumbai Anil Monshi Shah 3Rd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs 103, Sukh Castle, Bhandarkar Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Matunga East, Mumbai – 400019. Mumbai – 400012. [Pan: Aacps9726P] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

Section 148Section 254(1)

…We find that the AO ultimately made addition @ 12.5% of the purchases from Nazar Impex Private Ltd. The AO while making addition followed the decision of Gujarat High Court in CIT vs Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 451 and Bholanath Poly Fab Private Ltd. reported in 355 ITR 290. The AO restricted the addition to the extent of profit element on such disputed purchases. Before ld. CIT(A), the assessee again furnished complete set of documents to substantiate the purchases and further contended that the purchases shown from Nazar Impex cannot be doubted. The sale of assessee is not doubted. Sale is not possible in abse…

ITO-19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sailesh Metal Corporation, Mumbai

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

ITA 2977/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 133(6)Section 254(1)Section 37Section 68Section 69CSection 74

…with sales. The assessing officer, thus, rejected the contention of assessee. I find that assessing officer by referring certain case law including on the decision of 5 Sailesh Mestal Corporation Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs Bholanath Ply Fab P. Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 restricted the addition to the extent of 20% of the purchases. The ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to the extent of 4.40% i.e. gross profit ratio declared by assessee on total purchases of Rs. 10.07 crore. I find that the ld. CIT(A) in para 5.3.2 has recorded that the ld. Assessing Officer has not disputed the sales. Such finding is contra…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Gurgaon vs. Aro Equipments Private Limited, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3415/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanिनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Dcit, Aro Equipments Private Limited Circle-1(1), 5Th Floor, Hsiidc Vs. Plot No.300, Aro Tower, Building, Udyog Vihar, Udyog Vihar, Phase-2, Gurgaon, Phase-5, Gurgaon, Haryana. Haryana. Pan No.Aacca8471G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

…the assessee. So much is clear by the decision of this court. In particular, the court has also taken a similar view in the case of CIT v. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 498 (Guj) and in the case of CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab (P.)Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 290 (Guj). The view taken by the Tribunal in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [1996] 58ITD 428 (Ahd.) came to be approved. 8. If the entire purchases were wholly bogus and there was a finding of fact on record that no purchases were made at all, counsel for the Revenue would be justified in arguing that the entire amount of such bogus pu…

Income Tax Officer, Noida vs. Clean Crop India Private Limited, Noida

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3236/DEL/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2022-23 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Clean Crop India Pvt. Ltd., Noida Flat No. 211, Bha Millennium Towers, Plot B- 9/17, Sector-62, Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh Pan: Aaicc0064D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…the genuineness of the transactions remains to be proved. 4.6.7 In view of the above the case of assessee is decided on the lines of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Bholanath Poly Fab P. Ltd. (20130 355 ITR 290(Gujarat). The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court vide its order dated 23.10.2012 upheld the finding of the Tribunal that though the purchases were made from bogus parties but purchases themselves were not bogus as entire quantity of stock was sold by the assessee and hence only the profit margin embedded in such purchases would be subjected to tax and no…

Vinod Omprakash Kainya, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 25(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6429/MUM/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Vinod Omprakash Kainya, Asst. Cit Circle-25(1), Flat No. 41/42, Minal Apartment, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, C-10, Juhu Tara Road, Santacruz West, Vs. Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai-400054. Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aglpk 1448 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Sachin SarawagiFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 234ASection 271

…23.02.2019 after considering the facts Vinod Omprakash Kainya 6 and circumstances of the case restricted the addition to a certain percentage of disputed purchases. Further, the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. Bholanath Ply Fab P Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 390 has confirmed the decision of the ITAT that the addition should be restricted to profit element/benefit accrued to the assessee. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s Vijay Protins Ltd. v. CIT (2015) 58 taxmann.com 44 (Gujarat) has held as under: It is a matter of fact that the goods were not received from the parties from whom it is…

Income Tax Officer 1911, Piramal vs. Badamidevi Tejraj Mutha, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5432/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Smt. Renu Jauhriito – 19(1)(1) Vs. Badamidevi 501, 5Th Floor, Piramal Tejrajmutha Chambers, Lalbaug 67, Dr.Mg. Mohimtura Mumbai – 400012. Marg, 3Rd Kumbharwadalane, Mumbai – 400004. Pan/Gir No. Akipk1935E (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 250

…e decision of this court. In particular, the court has also taken a similar view in the case of CIT v. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 498(Guj) and in the case of CIT v. 6 Badamidevi Tejraj Mutha, Mumbai Bholanath Poly Fab (P.) Ltd. [2013] 355 ITR 290 (Guj). The view taken by the Tribunal in the case of Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [1996] 58 ITD 428 (Ahd.) came to be approved. 8. If the entire purchases were wholly bogus and there was a finding of fact on record that no purchases were made at all, counsel for the Revenue would be justified in arguing that the entire amount of such bogus…

Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Ludhiana, Aayakar Bhawan vs. Waryam Steel Casting Private Limited, Kanganwal Road

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 757/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Muskan Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 148Section 250

…vered under such purchases, but the profit element embedded therein would be subject to tax. Hence, 25% of the cost of such purchases was held as income. Similarly, in CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab (P.) Ltd. [2013] 40 taxmann.com 494 / [2014] 220 Taxman 82 (Mag.)/355 ITR 290 (Guj.) it was held on facts that the Tribunal found that, though purchases were made from bogus parties, but purchases themselves were not bogus as entire quantity of stock was sold by assessee, therefore, that only profit margin embedded in such purchases would be subjected to tax and not entire purchases. 10. Accordingly, looking into the facts…

Waryam Steel Castings Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 715/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Muskan Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 148Section 250

…vered under such purchases, but the profit element embedded therein would be subject to tax. Hence, 25% of the cost of such purchases was held as income. Similarly, in CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab (P.) Ltd. [2013] 40 taxmann.com 494 / [2014] 220 Taxman 82 (Mag.)/355 ITR 290 (Guj.) it was held on facts that the Tribunal found that, though purchases were made from bogus parties, but purchases themselves were not bogus as entire quantity of stock was sold by assessee, therefore, that only profit margin embedded in such purchases would be subjected to tax and not entire purchases. 10. Accordingly, looking into the facts…

DCIT Circle-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sunjewels Private Limited, Andheri East, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5244/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Sunjewels Private Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 116, Sdf-Iv, Seepz, Andheri East, – 3(2)(1), Mumbai Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai – 400096. Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabce3519L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax – Sunjewels Private Limited 3(2)(1), Mumbai 116, Sdf-Iv, Seepz, Andheri East, Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai – 400096. Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabce3519L (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Ravikanth PathakFor Respondent: Shri. Prashant Barote, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 72ASection 72A(2)(b)Section 80G

…s assessment for A.Y. 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2013-14, where the addition was at 5% on the bogus purchases. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujrat in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 051 and Bholanath Polyfab Pvt Ltd. 355 ITR 290 (Guj.), where only the profit element arising out of the bogus transaction was added to the total income. The ld. DR for the revenue contended that the assessee has failed to produce VAT/TIN and PAN number of the sellers from whom the assessee is alleged to have purchased raw materials and on verification only the VAT number of M/s. Adi Impex was…

Sunjewels Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax - 3(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and revenue are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4720/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Sunjewels Private Limited Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 116, Sdf-Iv, Seepz, Andheri East, – 3(2)(1), Mumbai Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai – 400096. Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabce3519L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax – Sunjewels Private Limited 3(2)(1), Mumbai 116, Sdf-Iv, Seepz, Andheri East, Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai – 400096. Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aabce3519L (Appellant) : (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Ravikanth PathakFor Respondent: Shri. Prashant Barote, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 72ASection 72A(2)(b)Section 80G

…s assessment for A.Y. 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2013-14, where the addition was at 5% on the bogus purchases. The ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Gujrat in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 051 and Bholanath Polyfab Pvt Ltd. 355 ITR 290 (Guj.), where only the profit element arising out of the bogus transaction was added to the total income. The ld. DR for the revenue contended that the assessee has failed to produce VAT/TIN and PAN number of the sellers from whom the assessee is alleged to have purchased raw materials and on verification only the VAT number of M/s. Adi Impex was…

DCIT 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sunjewels Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 5027/MUM/2024[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Smt Renu Jauhri, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.4062/Mum/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant PathakFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Sawant, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

…be made @ 100% in the bogus purchase cases. 13. On the contrary, the Ld. A.R. has claimed that the decision of the Ld. Commissioner is based on the judgment of the same High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth 356 ITR 051 and Bholenath Fab Pvt. Ltd. 355 ITR 290 (Guj.) as mentioned by the Ld. Commissioner in para number 5.9 of the impugned order and therefore the appeal of the Revenue Department is liable to be dismissed. 14. We have given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It is a settled law, as observed by the Ld. Commissioner that the estimation varies with…

CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd.