← 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

M/S. Navkar India, Surat vs. ACIT CC -1(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary ()

For Respondent: Mr. Suchek Anchaliya
Section 147Section 251(2)

case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of alleged commission turnover arising out of alleged bogus unsecured loans, bogus purchases and bogus sales amounting to Rs. 5,73,082/- on protective basis without appreciating the fact that the same amount has been substantively added ... erred in confirming the addition of alleged commission income arising out of alleged bogus unsecured loans, bogus sales and bogus purchases and also confirming the addition of gross profit, on estimation basis, by appreciating the fact that both such additions cannot co-exist together. 6. On the facts and circumstances

Chaitali Gems, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office, 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3927/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm Chaitali Gems Income Tax Office Dw-6110, Bharat Diamond 19(1)(1) Bourse, Bandra Kurla Vs. Piramal Chambers, Complex, Bandra East, Lalbagh, Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafc2052Q Assessee By : Shri K.A. Vaidyalingan, Ar Revenue By : Shri H.M. Bhatt, Dr

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Vaidyalingan, ARFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, DR
Section 143Section 147Section 69C

learned AO even to the extent of Rs.32,08,953/- (though quantum addition is reduced from Rs. 1,31,65,072/-) of alleged bogus purchases which is contrary to the binding judgment of the jurisdictional Bombay High Court in Mohammad Haji Adam & Co. (Appeal ... learned AO even to extent of Rs.32,08,953/- (though quantum addition is reduced from Rs. 1,31,65,072/-) of the alleged bogus purchases without appreciating the fact that said addition was made merely on the basis of statement made by a third party and without furnishing

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Mustafa Zainuddin Nalawala, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3194/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy.S

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ChamariaFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CTA) has erred in restricting to addition made on account of bogus purchases to 12.59% of total bogus purchases ignoring the fact that the Sales Tax Department has proved beyond doubt that parties declared as hawala traders ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in applying gross profit @12.5 % as against the 1009% of total bogus purchases of Rs. 26,29,369/- by ignoring the fact that Sales Tax Department and subsequently, the DGIT| Inv.), Mumbai during their course of investigation

Income Tax Officer-19(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Chandresh Chhaganlal Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3104/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Miss. Padmavathy.S

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh ChamariaFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CTA) has erred in restricting to addition made on account of bogus purchases to 12.59% of total bogus purchases ignoring the fact that the Sales Tax Department has proved beyond doubt that parties declared as hawala traders ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in applying gross profit @12.5 % as against the 1009% of total bogus purchases of Rs. 26,29,369/- by ignoring the fact that Sales Tax Department and subsequently, the DGIT| Inv.), Mumbai during their course of investigation

ACIT CC-14, Delhi vs. Delhi Spot Bullion Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1965/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Anuj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

make the addition on account of cash deposits. He neither found any back dating of the entries, evidence of bogus sales, evidence of bogus purchases, and non-existing cash in the books of account. •…...With respect to the deposit of the cash on hand with the various bank, the explanation

Bengal Mill Stores P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 6(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1204/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Bengal Mill Stores P. Ltd. 205, Maganlal Chamber, Dcit- Circle 6(1)(2) Baburao Bobde Marg, Iron Mumbai-400 Vs. Market Mumbai-400 009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcb2473Q : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.04.2024 19.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement :

For Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 271(1)(c)

wherein Bengal Mill Stores P. Ltd; A.Y. 2009-10 the addition to the extent of 12.5% amounting to ₹24,20,213/- of total alleged bogus purchases of ₹1,93,61,702/-, was partly allowed. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 02. ““1) In the facts and the circumstances ... learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 24,20,213/- being 12.5% of total alleged bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 1,93,61,702/- of the Appellant through alleged bogus suppliers by treating the same as bogus by: (a) Not providing the copy

Jignesh Chimanlal Jobanputra, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Ward 33(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4008/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal Bhuta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, JCIT
Section 148Section 69

returning loss of Rs.7,96,993. The Assessing Officer (AO) based on information received that the assessee had made bogus purchases from various parties totalling to Rs.15,51,506, reopened the assessment by issue of notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act (the Act). The assessee in response ... treated the loan as non-genuine and made the addition under section 69 towards the entire loan. The AO on the bogus purchases made an addition of Rs.1,93,938 by applying a profit ratio of 12.5%. 3. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). Before

Ravi Haldia, C/O Haldia Multipoint House vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly

ITA 65/JPR/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Board (CA)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) a
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 153ASection 260A

required to be answered in favour of the Department. The issue allowed in favour of the Department against the assessee. On the question of bogus purchases, the matter is remitted back to the AO. It will be open for the parties to lead their evidence including the cross-examination ... under:- "As regards the issue of alleged bogus/un-verifiable purchases it is respectfully submitted that in assessee's case there is no issue of bogus purchases but the issue is in regard to purchases made in the regular course of business but some of the purchases could not be got verified

Ravi Haldia, Haldia Multipoint House vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly

ITA 64/JPR/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Apr 2024AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Board (CA)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) a
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 153ASection 260A

required to be answered in favour of the Department. The issue allowed in favour of the Department against the assessee. On the question of bogus purchases, the matter is remitted back to the AO. It will be open for the parties to lead their evidence including the cross-examination ... under:- "As regards the issue of alleged bogus/un-verifiable purchases it is respectfully submitted that in assessee's case there is no issue of bogus purchases but the issue is in regard to purchases made in the regular course of business but some of the purchases could not be got verified

M/S. Gsp Crop Science Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 892/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 250(6)Section 35

Assessing Officer and Hon. CIT (A) have erred in law and on facts in making and confirming addition of Rs.62,08,914/- holding as bogus purchases disregarding the submissions of the Assessee. 9. As is evident from the perusal of the above ground the assessee is aggrieved by the confirmation ... disallowance of bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.62,08,914/- by the ld.CIT(A). ITA No.891 and 892/Ahd/2018 6 The facts relating to the issue are that the AO had received information from the DIT(Inv.), Surat that the assessee had been provided bogus bills from certain entities

M/S. Gsp Crop Science Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 891/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 250(6)Section 35

Assessing Officer and Hon. CIT (A) have erred in law and on facts in making and confirming addition of Rs.62,08,914/- holding as bogus purchases disregarding the submissions of the Assessee. 9. As is evident from the perusal of the above ground the assessee is aggrieved by the confirmation ... disallowance of bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.62,08,914/- by the ld.CIT(A). ITA No.891 and 892/Ahd/2018 6 The facts relating to the issue are that the AO had received information from the DIT(Inv.), Surat that the assessee had been provided bogus bills from certain entities

Shri Dipesh Prabhudas Kothari, HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2798/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 2798/Ahd/2013 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Shri Dipesh Prabhudas Kothari Income Tax Officer, Huf, Vs. Ward 3(2), 315, Astodia, Ahmedabad. Rangati Bazar, Ahmedabad-380002. Pan: Aabhk2547P

For Appellant: Shri M. K Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. DR

total income of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) who restricted the addition on such bogus purchased @ 12.5%. Thus, the Ld. CIT(A), allowed the ground of appeal of the assessee in part. 5. Being aggrieved by the order ... years which was below .032% and therefore GP addition on such alleged bogus expenses should not exceed more than 1% on the alleged bogus purchases. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the authorities below. 8. We have heard the rival contentions of both

Guptsa Emerald Mines Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assesse are allowed

ITA 17/JPR/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Apr 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. Sandep Gosain & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. S.L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

assessments for the Assessment Year 2005-06 and 2006-07 in the case of the M/S Clarity Gold Pvt. Ltd. the issue of bogus purchase examination is allowed in such a case also. So even if the Learned Assessing Officer treated Shri Ameria as director representing the company even then ... books of accounts with reference to bogus I.T.A. No. 16-17/JPR/202014 Assessment Year: 2005-06 & 2006-07 purchase vouchers. The issue of bogus purchase vouchers was not new in the case of the assessee. Even before the search took place the issue of bogus purchases vouchers have cropped

Guptsa Emerald Mines Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assesse are allowed

ITA 16/JPR/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Apr 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Sandep Gosain & Dr. M. L. Meena

For Appellant: Sh. S.L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

assessments for the Assessment Year 2005-06 and 2006-07 in the case of the M/S Clarity Gold Pvt. Ltd. the issue of bogus purchase examination is allowed in such a case also. So even if the Learned Assessing Officer treated Shri Ameria as director representing the company even then ... books of accounts with reference to bogus I.T.A. No. 16-17/JPR/202014 Assessment Year: 2005-06 & 2006-07 purchase vouchers. The issue of bogus purchase vouchers was not new in the case of the assessee. Even before the search took place the issue of bogus purchases vouchers have cropped

Smt Shilpa Rajesh Patel, Mumbai vs. The ITO, Ward-27(3)(3), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 3757/MUM/2023[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Apr 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh- Sr. AR
Section 133Section 143Section 148

Shri. B. Jain was engaged in fraudulent billing 2 Smt Shilpa Rajesh Patel activities and in giving accommodation entries of unsecured loans and bogus purchases to various beneficiaries including the assessee in this case. On the basis of the said information the AO re-opened the assessment under section

Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Hyderabad, Kondapur Hyderabad vs. Sangam Wires, Kalaburagi

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 371/HYD/2023[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad08 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.356/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Sangam Wires Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 11(1 Pan:Acnfs5309K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.371/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Income Tax Officer Vs. Sangam Wires Ward 11(1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acnfs5309K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M Chandramouleswara Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. T.H Vijaya Lakshmi,Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/04/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri M Chandramouleswara Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. T.H Vijaya Lakshmi,CIT(DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)

asking the assessee to explain as to why purchases amounting to Rs.16,86,10,466/- from the above parties should not be treated as bogus purchases and added back to the total income of the assessee. Rejecting the various explanation given by the assessee the Assessing Officer made addition ... same after some process was also sold and such sales were declared in its accounts and I.T.R filed declaring sales including sales relating to bogus purchases have been accepted by the Revenue since the sales are not doubted. He submitted that without purchases, there cannot be sales

Sangam Wires, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-11(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 356/HYD/2023[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad08 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.356/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Sangam Wires Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 11(1 Pan:Acnfs5309K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.371/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22) Income Tax Officer Vs. Sangam Wires Ward 11(1 Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Acnfs5309K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M Chandramouleswara Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. T.H Vijaya Lakshmi,Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/04/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri M Chandramouleswara Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. T.H Vijaya Lakshmi,CIT(DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)

asking the assessee to explain as to why purchases amounting to Rs.16,86,10,466/- from the above parties should not be treated as bogus purchases and added back to the total income of the assessee. Rejecting the various explanation given by the assessee the Assessing Officer made addition ... same after some process was also sold and such sales were declared in its accounts and I.T.R filed declaring sales including sales relating to bogus purchases have been accepted by the Revenue since the sales are not doubted. He submitted that without purchases, there cannot be sales

Ipca Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

ITA 883/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ipca Laboratories Ltd 48 Kandivli Industries Estate, Charkop Kandivli West, Mumbai-400067. बिधम/ Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-5(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2563/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2565/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2567/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2569/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2571/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) 2

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 35Section 80I

materials 52,30,300 1,18,40,000 1,39,88,050 2,07,60,787 2,72,63,943 6. Disallowance of bogus purchases 24,92,650 1,08,17,902 29,39,917 69,98,521 7. Disallowance of professional fees paid ... statements as noted by us are as follows :- Relevant part of statement of Mr. Manoj Kumar Jain:- “Q. 9 Are you aware of any bogus purchases booked or bogus commission payments made by M/s IPCA Laboratories Ltd. Ans: Sir, I am not aware of any bogus commission made

Ipca Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC-5(2), Mumbai

ITA 882/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ipca Laboratories Ltd 48 Kandivli Industries Estate, Charkop Kandivli West, Mumbai-400067. बिधम/ Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-5(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2563/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2565/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2567/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2569/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2571/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 35Section 80I

materials 52,30,300 1,18,40,000 1,39,88,050 2,07,60,787 2,72,63,943 6. Disallowance of bogus purchases 24,92,650 1,08,17,902 29,39,917 69,98,521 - 7. Disallowance of professional fees paid ... statements as noted by us are as follows :- Relevant part of statement of Mr. Manoj Kumar Jain:- “Q. 9 Are you aware of any bogus purchases booked or bogus commission payments made by M/s IPCA Laboratories Ltd. Ans: Sir, I am not aware of any bogus commission made

Ipca Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue for AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 are partly allowed

ITA 881/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal (Adv)For Respondent: Shri K. C Selvamani (DR)
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 35Section 80I

statements as noted by us are as follows :- Relevant part of statement of Mr. Manoj Kumar Jain:- “Q. 9 Are you aware of any bogus purchases booked or bogus commission payments made by M/s IPCA Laboratories Ltd. Ans: Sir, I am not aware of any bogus commission made ... IPCA Laboratories ltd. but there is bogus purchase booked from M/s Reynolds Petro Chem Ltd. Q. 11 Please furnish the details of the transactions made with M/s Reynolds Petro Chem Ltd, along with the modes operandi followed. & Others (Assessee & Revenue) A.Y Nos. 2009-10 to AY. 14-15 IPCA Laboratories