← All Phrases

“bogus purchases”

DisallowancesSection 69CSection 69C9,532 judgments

The decision most relied on for bogus purchases is CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd. (355 ITR 290), cited in 712 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on bogus purchases

CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd.
355 ITR 290 · 2013 · High Court
712
citing judgments

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.

Sanjay Oilcake Industries v. CIT
316 ITR 274 · 2009 · High Court
460
citing judgments

In cases of alleged bogus or unverifiable purchases, rather than disallowing the entire purchase value, a reasonable profit element or a proportionate percentage of the purchases should be added back to the assessee's income.

Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asst. CIT
58 ITD 428 · 1996 · ITAT
430
citing judgments

Where purchases are found to be non-genuine or fictitious, a reasonable disallowance of 25% of such purchases or the peak credit, whichever is higher, can be made. This is applied to address unexplained expenditure under Section 69C when actual goods are likely procured from the grey market.

CIT v. Odeon Builders Pvt. ltd.
418 ITR 315 · 2019 · Supreme Court
408
citing judgments

Income tax additions cannot be sustained merely on the basis of uncorroborated statements or allegations. The Revenue must bring on record sufficient material and allow the assessee to produce evidence to prove such additions.

Nikunj Eximp Enterprises v. CIT
216 Taxmann 171 · 2013 · High Court
325
citing judgments

Purchases may be treated as genuine even if the purchase parties are untraceable or not available for verification, as long as there is no specific evidence from the parties themselves denying the transactions or proving them to be bogus.

CIT v. Shyam R. Pawar
54 Taxmann.com 108 · 2015 · High Court
279
citing judgments

Transactions involving the purchase and sale of shares cannot be considered bogus where the assessee provides documentary evidence, unless the revenue brings substantial evidence on record to reject such proof. This principle is consistently applied in cases concerning claims of bogus long-term capital gains arising from penny stock transactions.

CIT v. Simit P. Seth
38 Taxmann.com 385 · 2013 · High Court
278
citing judgments

When an assessee obtains accommodation bills for purchases but the corresponding sales are genuine, the addition to income is limited to the gross profit margin embedded in such purchases. This principle acknowledges that the underlying sales were real, but profit was suppressed through bogus invoices.

CIT v. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd.
355 ITR 498 · 2013 · High Court
252
citing judgments

In cases of alleged bogus or hawala purchases where the existence of transactions is not entirely denied, only the profit element embedded in such purchases, and not the entire purchase price, can be added to the assessee's income. The focus is on determining a reasonable profit percentage for such additions.

Judgments citing bogus purchases

ITO-19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Shankarlal Bhimraj Bhansali, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 807/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, SR. D.R
Section 250

erred in restricting the addition @ 5% as against 100% addition made by the 2 M/s. Shankarlal Bhimraj Bhansali Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases of Rs. 79,31,982/- by ignoring the fact that the Sales Tax Department, Govt of Maharashtra has proved beyond doubt that alleged eight parties ... erred in restricting the addition @ 5% as against 100% addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases of Rs. 79,31,982/-, by ignoring the fact that action of the Assessing Officer was based on credible information received from the Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra State, and that

Alfiya Ayazali Sayyad, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 206/NAG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Nagpur Alfiya Ayazali Sayyad ITA no.206/Nag./2022 in appeal against quantum proceedings wherein the additions have been restricted to 10% of total alleged bogus purchases of Rs.1,49,43,240. That penalty cannot be levied when the addition has been made on estimated basis. 4. The Appellant prays leave ... order passed by the learned CIT(A)–2, dated 30/09/2019, wherein the assessee has challenged the addition of ` 1,49,43,240, as bogus purchase. The learned CIT(A) in Para–5.1.4 to 5.1.5 has held as under:– Alfiya Ayazali Sayyad ITA no.206/Nag./2022 3.1.4. The views similar

Shri Rakesh Vardhichand Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward- 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 516/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148

their industry) on the trading done by him during the year. When there is a reasonable profit the question of suppression of tax or bogus purchase doesn't arise.” 3. Brief facts of the case as culled out from records are that assessee filed his return of income ... hearing fixed by the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, in absence of any response from the assessee, the addition so made on account of bogus purchases was sustained and the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3 Rakesh Vardhichand Shah, AY 2011-12 5. Before

Laxmipati Impex Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4787/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am)

Section 142Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69C

made. 4. The learned assessing officer has noted that assessee has paid a sum of ₹ 980,000 to M/s Ankita enterprises for bogus purchases. The learned assessing officer noted that the genuineness of the purchases have not been proved by the assessee and also could not show any corresponding sales ... simple reason that assessing officer has categorically noted that assessee has failed to show that there is any sales of the alleged bogus purchases product. When the sales is not shown by the assessee out of the alleged bogus purchases, the benefit of the gross profit cannot be allowed

Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2), Kalyan vs. Mukesh Odhavji Kamaliya, Pune

In the result appeal of the AO is dismissed

ITA 2767/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 2767/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2010-11) Vs. Ito, Mukesh Odhavji Kamaliya Ward 3(2) Flat No. 22, Building E2 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion Prem Park, Masulkar Colony Near Murbad Road, Kalyan-W Corporation Maharashtra-421 301. Bank, Pune-411 018 Pan : Axzpk8408L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 04.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.06.2024 O R D E R 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Income Tax Officer Ward 3 (2), Kalyan (The Learned Assessing Officer) For Assessment Year 2010 – 11 Against The Appellate Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (The Learned Cit – A) Dated 29/5/2023 Wherein The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer On 19/2/2015 Under Section 143 (3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Was Partly Allowed. Therefore, The Assessing Officer Is Aggrieved & Is In Appeal Before Us. 2. The Solitary Ground Of The Appeal Of The Learned Assessing Officer Is That The Learned Cit – A Has Erred In Restricting The Disallowance To 25% Of Purchases Instead Of Hundred Percent Of Purchases Of Rs. 777,174/– From Non-Existent Vendor’S By Not Following The Decision Of The Honourable Gujarat High Court In Case Of Nk Proteins Ltd Versus Dcit Where In It Has Been Held That Once The Purchases Are Bogus, The Addition Should Be Made On The Entire Purchases & Not Only The Page 1 Of 4

Section 133Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 69C

Accordingly, the assessment order was passed under section 143 read with section 147 of the act on 19/2/2015 wherein the 100 % percent of the bogus purchases of Rs. 777,174/– was added to the total income of the assessee under section 69C of the act to the returned income ... decision of the honourable Gujarat High Court in case of Vijay proteins Ltd versus ACIT restricted the addition to the extent of 25% of bogus purchases. The learned assessing officer is aggrieved with the same and is in appeal before us. 5. The learned departmental representative vehemently submitted that

Construction Technique, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-20(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 747/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Aditya RamchandranFor Respondent: H.M. Bhatt
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in confirming the disallowance of the alleged bogus purchases of 1,23,92,481. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has erred ... case for the same assessment year wherein Page 2 ITA No.747/Mum/2024 Construction Technique Vs. ACIT, Circle-20(1) the disallowance on account of bogus purchases (from other parties) was restricted to 18 25%. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary and / or withdraw any or all the above

Income Tax Officer -19(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Khodiyar Impex, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3163/MUM/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailincome Tax Officer- Vs. Khodiyar Impex 19(2)(2), 503, Piramal 15-A, Sopariwala Estate, Chambers, Income Tax Prasad Chambers Office, Parel, Compound, Opera House Maharashtra – 400012 Maharashtra- 400004 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aadfk2874R Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: P.D. ChouguleFor Respondent: Kiran Mehta &
Section 143(1)Section 148

erred in reducing gross profit @ 3% as against the 100% addition made by the Assessing office on account of bogus purchases of Rs. 1,86,50,000/, by Ignoring the fact that the DGIT (Inv.), had proved beyond doubt that Mr. Bhawarlal Jain & his Group concerns were involved in providing ... erred in reducing gross profit @3% as against the 100% addition made by the Assessing office on account of bogus purchases of Rs. 1,86,50,000/-, by Ignoring the fact that the action of the Assessing officer was based on credible information received from the DGIT (Inv), Mumbai

Three M Paper Boards Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-2 (3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1548/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Smt Renu Jauhridy. Commissioner Of Three M Paper Boards Vs. Income Tax–2(3)(1), Limited, Room No. Ab–615, A33/34, Royal Ayakar Bhavan, Industrial Estate, M.K. Road, 5–Bnaigaoncrossroad, Mumbai–400020. Wadala, Mumbai–400031. Pan/Gir No. Aaact1650J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 115JSection 250

case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 6,20,05,611/-on account of alleged bogus purchases merely on surmises and conjectures. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds ... satisfied with the explanations of the assessee and observed that the genuineness of the transactions could not be established and made disallowance of alleged bogus purchases of Rs6,20,05,611/- and assessed the total income of Rs. 10,75,49,750/- and passed the order u/sec

R Ramesh & Co., Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2012 – 13 is partly allowed

ITA 107/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Suchak Ancheliya CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR
Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 69C

Page 1 of 10 ITA No 106 & 107/MUM/2023 AY 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s R Ramesh & co investigation wing that assessee has obtained bogus purchases from three bogus hawala parties of Rs. 8,034,771 which was added by the learned assessing officer to the total income of the assessee ... increase in estimation of net profit by making the above addition. The learned assessing officer has made the addition of the 100 % of such bogus purchases under section 69C of the act to the total income of the assessee of Rs. 131,580/– and determined the total income

R Ramesh & Co., Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(3), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2012 – 13 is partly allowed

ITA 106/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Suchak Ancheliya CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, DR
Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 69C

Page 1 of 10 ITA No 106 & 107/MUM/2023 AY 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/s R Ramesh & co investigation wing that assessee has obtained bogus purchases from three bogus hawala parties of Rs. 8,034,771 which was added by the learned assessing officer to the total income of the assessee ... increase in estimation of net profit by making the above addition. The learned assessing officer has made the addition of the 100 % of such bogus purchases under section 69C of the act to the total income of the assessee of Rs. 131,580/– and determined the total income

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai. vs. Narendra G Mehta HUF, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross

ITA 3557/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit, C.C. 5(1) Vs. Narendra G. Mehta Huf, Room No.1928, 19Th Floor, Ground Floor, Pankaj Air India Building, Mahel, Opp, K.C. College, Nariman Point, Church Gate, Mumbai – 400021 Mumbai – 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaahn8330A Appellant .. Respondent C.O No.25/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2011-12) Narendra G. Mehta Huf, Vs. Dcit, C.C. 5(1) Ground Floor, Pankaj Room No.1928, 19Th Mahel, Opp, K.C. College, Floor, Air India Building, Church Gate, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: : Aaahn8330A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition of commission income from providing the bogus purchase entry @ 0.1% of the total bogus purchase as against the addition determined by the Assessing Officer @of 1% the total bogus purchase entry ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition of commission income from providing the bogus purchase entry @ 0.1% of the total bogus purchase amount only on the basis that the Assessing Officer in the case of Narendra G. Mehta Individual

Bindal Oils Pvt Ltd, Bhiwadi vs. ITO Ward, Bhiwadi

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

ITA 741/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Poonia, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 69C

appellant received accommodation entries of Rs. 26.04.250/- from Shri Trilok Goel Prop. M/s Kalka Udyog and M/s Kalka Flour Mills in shape of bogus purchase of Rs. 26,04,250/- edible oil without receiving any goods during the year under consideration. 6.3 Further the AO has stated that during ... appeal are dismissed. 2.2 During the course of hearing of the case, the Bench noted that addition u/s 69C on account of bogus purchases from Shri Trilok Goel Prop. M/s. Kalka Udyog and M/s. Kalka Flour Mills was made by the AO in the hands of the assessee whereas

Calcom Realty Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 3(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 979/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Calcom Realty Pvt. Ltd. Unit No. 34A, 2Nd Floor, Arsiwala Building, Colaba Maharashtra – 400 005 Pan: Aadcc1764B ..... Appellant Vs. Ito 3(1)(3) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai- 400 020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh, Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 250

doing genuine business & providing only accommodation entries. Thus the assessee had transferred aforesaid funds to M/s Raves Trades Pvt. Ltd. against accommodation entry of bogus purchases. Aforesaid fact shows that the assessee has failed to disclose fully & truly all the material facts necessary for its assessment

K & P Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1318/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi T A. No. 1318, 1319 & 1320/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2013-14)

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in adding Rs. 88,29,133/- as alleged Bogus purchases being 100% of the total purchases CIT[A] erred in not deciding the same on merits, a) Even though the payment for purchases is made from ... Subsequently the Assessing Officer (AO) has received the information from DGIT (Inv), Mumbai that the assesse was engaged in obtaining the accommodation entries/ bogus purchase bills in the F.Y 2007-08 from the B.L.Jain Group entities and the assessee is a beneficiary. The AO has reason to believe that

Ganesh Steel & Alloys Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-1(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 929/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 69C

during the year and remaining amount of Rs. 8,28,192/- was outstanding as on 31.03.2012. Finally the AO made addition on account of bogus purchases u/s 69C of the Act in the assessment framed. The Ld. A.R contended that since the addition was not made with respect ... addition in this case has been made by AO with total non-application of mind as the addition has been made in respect of bogus purchases u/s 69C of the Act. The ld AR submitted that the said provision are applicable only to unexplained expenditure where in any financial year

Swastika Investmart Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 535/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Nisha Lohati-CA & VijayFor Respondent: 06.06.2024
Section 143(3)

genuine and accordingly made a disallowance towards depreciation amounting to Rs. 9,75,000/- by applying the rate of 60% on the alleged bogus purchases. The AO also made addition of Rs.12,04,913/- towards non-deduction of TDS and Rs.10,66,407/- towards depreciation on BSE Card. 3. Aggrieved

ACIT 32 (1), Mumbai vs. United Insulation, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals field by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1494/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, SR.DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Sanjay Shah, Hardik Shah
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

under consideration u/s 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer completed the reassessments of all the three years by disallowing 25% of those alleged bogus purchases. He also levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in all the three years. The details of addition made and penalty levied ... appeals filed by the assessee against quantum proceedings, the Ld.CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 12.5% of the value of the alleged bogus purchases. 4. The assessee also filed appeals before ld CIT(A) challenging the penalty levied in all the three years. The Ld.CIT(A) deleted the penalty

ACIT 32 1, Mumbai vs. United Insulation, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals field by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1492/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, SR.DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Sanjay Shah, Hardik Shah
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

under consideration u/s 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer completed the reassessments of all the three years by disallowing 25% of those alleged bogus purchases. He also levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in all the three years. The details of addition made and penalty levied ... appeals filed by the assessee against quantum proceedings, the Ld.CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 12.5% of the value of the alleged bogus purchases. 4. The assessee also filed appeals before ld CIT(A) challenging the penalty levied in all the three years. The Ld.CIT(A) deleted the penalty

ACIT -32(1), Mumbai vs. United Insulation, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals field by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1431/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, SR.DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Sanjay Shah, Hardik Shah
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

under consideration u/s 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer completed the reassessments of all the three years by disallowing 25% of those alleged bogus purchases. He also levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in all the three years. The details of addition made and penalty levied ... appeals filed by the assessee against quantum proceedings, the Ld.CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 12.5% of the value of the alleged bogus purchases. 4. The assessee also filed appeals before ld CIT(A) challenging the penalty levied in all the three years. The Ld.CIT(A) deleted the penalty

M/S Shivam Construction Co., Panvel vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Panvel Circle, Panvel

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 810/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.810/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Shivam Construction Co., Vs. Dcit, 5, At Nhavda Phata, Panvel Circle, Midc, Taloja, Panvel – 410 208 Panvel Maharashtra Pan : Aaefm8600L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Abdesh Kumar Jha
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148

proceedings were taken up. Subsequently, based on the information obtained from the Sales Tax Department of Govt. of Maharashtra that the appellant had obtained bogus purchased bills to the extent of Rs.4,26,702/- from one entry provider namely M/s. Adigin, the Assessing Officer formed opinion that income escaped assessment ... circumstances, the AO was constrained to complete the assessment u/s.144 vide order dated 12.03.2014 after disallowing the said bogus purchases of Rs.4,26,702/-. 3. Against the said assessment order, an appeal was preferred before the CIT(A), Thane who vide order dated 03.10.2017 dismissed the appeal. On further appeal