← 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-27(3)(1), Mumbai, Vashi vs. Sudarshan Vithal Kote, Ghatkopar West, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3917/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh, Income Tax Officer- 27(3)(1) Vs. Sudarshan Vithal Kote Room No. 422, 4Th Floor 1/7-8 Nityanand Colony Tower No. 6, Vashi Rly. Stn. Dev Shetty Compound Commercial Complex, Vashi Ghatkopar (West) Navi Mumbai 400703 Mumbai 400086 Pan/Gir No. : Aojpk1524L Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Krishna Kumar, JCITFor Respondent: ------ None -----
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition to 10% instead of 25% of bogus purchase of Rs. 1,80,59,239/- without considering the fact that the notice issued ... Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition to 10% instead of 25% of bogus purchase made by the AO, without appreciating the fact that the purchase was not genuine and purchase parties has accepted these facts in their statement

ITO-20(3)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chamber vs. Samiullah Mohammed Khalil Ansari, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3898/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 20(3)(1) V. Samiullah Mohammed Khalil Ansari Plot No. 92, 2Nd Lane Room No. 622, Piramal Chamber Magazine Street, Darukhana Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai - 400012 Mumbai - 400010 Pan: Afnpa4055P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri C.V. Jain Department Represented By : Shri Paresh Deshpande

substance of the grievance of the revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition made on account of bogus purchase to 5% of total bogus purchases. 3. We find that the tax-effect in the impugned appeal is only ₹.13,69,950/-. Therefore, this appeal

Pragati Pre Fab India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 13 (1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2652/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 276Section 276C(2)Section 9

duly processed and accepted vide intimation u/s.143(1) dated 29/08/2011. Based on certain information from Sales Tax department that assessee had taken some bogus purchases from hawala entry providers, the assessee’s case was reopened u/s.147. Thereafter, an addition of entire purchases of Rs.34,04,690/- was made

Income Tax Officer, Thane vs. Muljibhai Arjanbhai Sakaria, Thane

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2794/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Smitha V. Nair
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 250

case and in law, the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 54,97,661/- made on account of bogus purchases, without appreciating that both the assessee as well as the purported seller, Shri Ved Prakash Gupta [Prop M/s Subita Wires & Cables] failed to prove the sale ... ground/grounds, which may be necessary.” 5. The only dispute raised by the Revenue is against the deletion of addition made on account of bogus purchases. Shri Muljibhai A. Sakaria. 6. The brief facts of the case, as emanating from the record, are: The assessee is an individual and is engaged

Income Tax Officer, Kalyan vs. J D Electric Works, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4521/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 148

respect of Ground No. 1 of the appeal relating to In respect of Ground No. 1 of the appeal relating to disallowance of bogus purchase of Rs. 23,04,437/ disallowance of bogus purchase of Rs. 23,04,437/- -, the Ld. CIT(A) noted that in respect of bogus purchases ... respect of bogus purchases pertaining to assessment pertaining to assessment already accepted the years 2009-10 to 2011 10 to 2011-12, the assessee had already accepted the additional profit of Rs.20,00,000/ profit of Rs.20,00,000/- during the course of survey during the course of survey action

Kalpesh Rameshbhai Vyas, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 2(1), Thane

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

ITA 4392/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh, Kalpesh Rameshbhai Vyas Vs. Income Tax Officer – 2(1) 15/A, Gr. Floor, Laheri Bldg. Rom No. B-25. 6Th Floor 4Th Khetwadi Lane Ashar It Park, Road No. 16-Z Opp. Recreation Park Wagle Industrial Estate Mumbai 400004 Thane (West) 400602 Pan/Gir No. : Aappv4037K Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Mona MakwanaFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 148

income of Rs.2,33,550/-. Subsequently information was received from the office of DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai that the assesse had obtained accommodation entries of bogus purchases without any goods. Therefore, the case of the assessee was reopened by issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 21.03.2017. During the course ... addition was restricted to the extent of the difference between the gross profit of the genuine purchases and gross profit of bogus purchases, i.e. GPR @ 2.86% of bogus purchases. The ld. Counsel has also submitted a paper book comprising copies of the decisions of Coordinate Bench as referred above

Income Tax Officer Ward-12(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Hari Steel Industries Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3574/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Anil ThakrarFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250

assessment proceedings.” 3. The only dispute raised by the revenue, in the present appeal, pertains to the deletion of addition made on account of bogus purchases made by the assessee. 4. The brief facts of the case, as emanating from records, are: The assessee is engaged in the business ... between the assessee and M/s. Kasturi Commodities Pvt. Ltd. The learned CIT(A) also noted that the AO, although made the impugned addition on bogus purchases, however, no comments have been made on the nature of sales made by the assessee. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before

M/S Satwant Agro Engineers, Bhawanigarh vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Patiala

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

ITA 753/CHANDI/2022[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2024

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69Section 69A

taxing such income u/s 115BBE of Income Tax Act 1961." So at last it is submitted that excess stock without any finding about bogus purchases is assessable under the head "business or profession" and section 69 read with section 115BBE had wrongly invoked. Ground of Appeal No.3-Credit entry in partner

Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. Ltd, 2009-10 vs. ACIT, Cir-4(1), Kol, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 495/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Based on the above reasons, reopening proceedings have been carried out and addition has been made in the hands of assessee for bogus purchases. We observe that the assessee has to purchase cotton yarn from the market. These purchases are being consistently made from past many years through the brokers

Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. Ltd, 2009-10 vs. ACIT, Cir-4(1), Kol, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 494/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Based on the above reasons, reopening proceedings have been carried out and addition has been made in the hands of assessee for bogus purchases. We observe that the assessee has to purchase cotton yarn from the market. These purchases are being consistently made from past many years through the brokers

Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. Ltd, 2009-10 vs. ACIT, Cir-4(1), Kol, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 493/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Based on the above reasons, reopening proceedings have been carried out and addition has been made in the hands of assessee for bogus purchases. We observe that the assessee has to purchase cotton yarn from the market. These purchases are being consistently made from past many years through the brokers

M D Diesel Spares, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward-47, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1430/KOL/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.1430/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M D Diesel Spares………..………………………… ........................……Appellant 7/12, Kings Road, Howrah-711101. [Pan: Aakfm7649F] Vs. Ito, Ward-47(2), Kolkata..................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tibrewal & Saurabh Gupta, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Prabir Gupta Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 03, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.10.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Addition Of Rs.18,85,520/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 69C Of The Act On Account Of Bogus Purchases. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Firm Is Involved In The Business Of Spare Parts Of The Machinery. The Assessee Firm For The Year Under Consideration Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.45,150/-. The Said Return Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

this appeal has agitated against the addition of Rs.18,85,520/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69C of the Act on account of bogus purchases. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee firm is involved in the business of spare parts of the machinery ... Shri Sanjiw Kumar Singh. Therefore, the assessee fails to discharge their onus to rebut their involvement in the alleged transaction by way of bogus purchase from the companies which were paper concerns of Shri Sanjiw Kumar Singh. 7. In this context, reference is made to the case

Rohit Vallabhadas Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office-32(1)(7), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4202/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Hon'Blerohit Vallabhdas Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 42(1)(4) B-303, Dwarka Apartment Kautilya Bhavan Daulat Nagar, Borivali (E) Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai – 400066 Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Accps2392B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Anil Thakrar Department Represented By : Smt Mahita Nair

Section 143(2)

Shah 2. The grievance read as under: - ”1) The Ld. CIT-(A) is erred in confirming the addition of Rs.63,70,738/- fully as bogus purchased @ 100% of such purchases. 2) The Ld. CIT-(A) is erred in considering the purchases as bogus in spite of the fact that ... that, as per the information received from Sales Tax Department, the Assessing Officer came to know that the assessee has made bogus purchases from parties who are providing accommodation bills. On further probe, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has failed to produce delivery challans, no supporting documents

Aishwarya Publications Private Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3650/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla (Jm) & Smt. Renu Jauhri (Am) I.T.A. No. 3650/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2010-11) M/S. Aishwarya Vs. Ito, Ward 1(1)(1) Publication Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 534/579A 3Rd Floor, Centre Point Aayakar Bhavan 18Th Road, Chembur M.K. Road Mumbai-400 070. Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aaaca3569K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S.G. Goyal & Shri Harsh S. Goyal Department By Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha Date Of Hearing 16.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 03.05.2024 O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri (Am) :-

Section 127Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148(1)Section 151

under: (i) Regarding the reason recorded by the ACIT, it is seen that he had received specific information from the Investigation Wing regarding bogus purchases of ₹ 65,00,000/- by the appellant, which was sufficient for forming a prima facie belief regarding escapement of income. Further an opportunity was also

Income Tax Officer -Ward-41(2)(4), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhawan, G Block, Bkc, Bandra East vs. Pushpadevi Santkumar Tola, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2762/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri S.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

made an addition of 12.5% of suspicious purchases. In further appellate proceedings, the Tribunal held that since the assessee has disclosed Gross profit on bogus purchases of 2.55% and therefore to give credit for the same, the estimation of profit @10% will be sufficient. Meanwhile, penalty proceedings under section ... learned CIT(A), vide impugned order, deleted the penalty levied by the AO on the basis that the addition on account of bogus purchases is made on an estimated basis. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. 6. During the hearing, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that since

R. G. Sundar & Co, Erode vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1600/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1599 & 1600/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. R.G. Sundar & Co., The Deputy Commissioner Erode Feeds Producers, Vs. Of Income Tax, 82, Perundurai Road, Central Circle-2, Perundurai – 638 001. Coimbatore Pan: Aaffr 3771C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate Shri Suraj Nahar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

business premises of the assessee on 18.01.2018 and consequent to the survey, the assessee was noticed to have been indulged in bogus purchases or inflating its purchases. Consequently, assessment was reopened u/s.147 r.w.s 148 of the Act dated 05.04.2018 and reassessment was completed on confronting the discrepancies in regard ... bogus purchases not entered in the stock register and partner stating that the purchases were made within the factory premises itself and the same remained to be recorded in the stock inward register. The partner of the assessee, Shri Ganpati Chettiar Sundaram vide statement dated 18.12.2018 voluntarily offered to declare

R. G. Sundar & Co, Erode vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1599/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1599 & 1600/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. R.G. Sundar & Co., The Deputy Commissioner Erode Feeds Producers, Vs. Of Income Tax, 82, Perundurai Road, Central Circle-2, Perundurai – 638 001. Coimbatore Pan: Aaffr 3771C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate Shri Suraj Nahar, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2024

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

business premises of the assessee on 18.01.2018 and consequent to the survey, the assessee was noticed to have been indulged in bogus purchases or inflating its purchases. Consequently, assessment was reopened u/s.147 r.w.s 148 of the Act dated 05.04.2018 and reassessment was completed on confronting the discrepancies in regard ... bogus purchases not entered in the stock register and partner stating that the purchases were made within the factory premises itself and the same remained to be recorded in the stock inward register. The partner of the assessee, Shri Ganpati Chettiar Sundaram vide statement dated 18.12.2018 voluntarily offered to declare

Mr. Zamirullah Subedarkhan Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 20(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4165/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Zamirullah Ito- Ward 20(3)(5), Subedarkhan Khan Room No. 205, B.P.T., Piramal Chamber, Plot No. 262, Lalbaug, Vs. Kolsa Bunder, Mumbai- 400012 Darukhana, Reay Road, Mumbai- 400010. Pan: Aabpk9505H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr. A.R. Date Of Hearing : 25 .04 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30 .04 . 2024 O R D E R Per: Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Appellant Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit Appeal Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [The ‘Act’ In Short] Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056652408(1) Dated 29/9/2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring The Total Income At Rs.14,08,440/- Which Was Processed

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr. A.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250Section 69C

Subsequently, information was received from the office of DGIT (Inv.) Mumbai that the assessee was engaged in bogus purchase activities and had taken accommodation entries from the entry operators. During the assessment year under consideration the assessee had taken bogus purchases bills from one M/s. Mumbai Trading Company amounting ... reopening of assessment were duly satisfied. 6. During the proceedings before us, the appellant submitted that though, it may be a case of bogus purchase, 100% addition on this count is excessive, arbitrary and not in accordance with the law. 7. We have carefully considered the grounds of appeal raised

Shine Star, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 4001/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. Ajay R. Singh- Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan, Ld. Sr. A.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

read with section 147 of the Act, ultimately made the disallowance of Rs.3,46,67,496/- qua alleged purchases by holding the same as bogus purchases. 3. The assessee, though preferred first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner against the assessment order and also challenged the 3 M/s. Shine Star said ... failed to respond the notices sent and therefore in the constrained circumstances, the Ld. Commissioner affirmed the aforesaid addition, which is 100% of the bogus purchases from the aforesaid two entities. The Assessee being aggrieved is in appeal before us. 4. We have given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts

Sama Jewellery Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-8(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3988/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaysama Jewellery Private Dcit-8(1)(1) 6Th Floor, Limited, 313, Vasan Udyog Bhavan, Aayakar Bhawan, Off Senapati Bapat Marg, M.K. Road, Vs. Lower Parel, Mumbai 400020 Mumbai 400013. Pan No. Aaaat3419K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi – Ca : Shri Prashant Mahajan – Sr. Ar Revenue By Date Of Hearing: 16.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2024 O R D E R Per: Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit Appeal Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act [The ‘Act’ In Short] Vide Din & Order No. Itba/ Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056140099(1) Dated 15.9.2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Appellant Is A Private Limited Company Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Jewelry. For The Assessment Year Under Consideration, The Appellant Filed Its Return Of Income Electronically On 28.09.2011 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,35,53,039/- Which Was Processed U/S. 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act Accepting The Returned Income. 3. In The Meantime, A Survey U/S. 133A Was Conducted In The Business Premises Of The Appellant On 04.2.2011 & Certain Discrepancy Was Sama Jewellery Private Limited; A. Y.2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi – CA
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

before the Ld. CIT, Appeal challenging both the reopening of the assessment made u/s 147 of the Act and the addition on account of bogus purchases. The Ld. CIT, Appeal upheld both the reopening of assessment and addition on the ground of bogus purchase. However, the Ld. CIT, Appeal restricted ... addition of bogus purchases to Rs.23,42,153 being 48% of the bogus purchases. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT Appeal this appeal has been preferred. 7. During the course of hearing before this Bench, the appellant also filed paper books containing the confirmation of accounts from the parties