← 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

Nirmala Devi, Bhiwani vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Gurgaon

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1403/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Delhi22 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.1402 & 1403 /Del/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Nirmala Devi Dcit Charkhi Dadri, Bhiwani, Central Circle-1 Haryana Vs. Gurgaon Pan No.Acipd0132E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 153ASection 153DSection 155

facts in upholding addition of Rs 10,25,100/- out of Rs. Rs. 70,706 by applying GP rate of 25% on the alleged bogus purchase of 70,78,000/- made with M/s Yash Trading Company. 3.1 That while confirming the above addition, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ... Appeals) has failed to appreciate that expenditure incurred was duly supported by bills and necessary evidence and the conclusion that the purchases were bogus purchases is contrary to facts and evidence on record and thus unsustainable. 3.3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both

Nirmala Devi, Bhiwani vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Gurgaon

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1402/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Delhi22 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.1402 & 1403 /Del/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17 Nirmala Devi Dcit Charkhi Dadri, Bhiwani, Central Circle-1 Haryana Vs. Gurgaon Pan No.Acipd0132E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 153ASection 153DSection 155

facts in upholding addition of Rs 10,25,100/- out of Rs. Rs. 70,706 by applying GP rate of 25% on the alleged bogus purchase of 70,78,000/- made with M/s Yash Trading Company. 3.1 That while confirming the above addition, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ... Appeals) has failed to appreciate that expenditure incurred was duly supported by bills and necessary evidence and the conclusion that the purchases were bogus purchases is contrary to facts and evidence on record and thus unsustainable. 3.3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both

Vision Jewellers, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 530/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

declared in ITR by the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee had made bogus purchases from M/s Kriya Impex Ltd. of Rs.6,99,500/- and from M/s Sun Diam of Rs.10,58,250/-. Accordingly, the AO made addition of Rs.4 ... total bogus purchases of Rs.17,57,750/- and also made addition on account of commission of Rs.3,516/-. It is also noteworthy to mention that on appeal by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the additions made by the AO. Subsequently, the AO passed penalty order

The Hamlet, Bangalore vs. The Income-Tax Officer-Ward-6(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 70/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. The Hamlet, No. 11, Kemwell House, The Income Tax Tumkur Road, Officer, Yeshwanthpur, Ward – 6(2)(4), Bangalore – 560 022. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaaft6690D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H.N. Kincha, Ca : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit - Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 24-08-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-11-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Order Dated 27.12.2022 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Passing The Appellate Order In The Manner Passed. The Appellate Order As Passed Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. In Any Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Should Have Quashed, The Order Passed By Assessing Officer Or Atleast Should Have Deleted The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Kincha, CA
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 234BSection 68

reopened without proper reason to believe. If the reasons state that the information received from the VAT Dept that the assessee entered into bogus purchases needed deep verification, it means the AO is reopening for doing a fishing or roving inquiry without proper reason to believe, which is not permissible

M/S. Colour Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 31/KOL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Nov 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 31/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Colour Realtors Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Ward- 85, Bentick Street Vs 2(2), Kolkata 5Th Floor Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aadcc9668G] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri K.M. Roy, A/R Revenue By : Shri S. Datta, Cit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/11/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 16/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Order Of The Ld Cit(A) Is Unjustified & Bad In Law As Ld Cit(A) Has Failed To Fulfil Its Statutory Obligations By Not Considering The Facts & Merits Of The Case While Disposing Off The Appeal. 2. For That The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing The Order Without Giving Any Opportunity To The Assessee For Making Its Submission & Also Failed To Serve The Notices On The Assessee Since No Intimation Of The Notices Was Sent To Assessee Over E-Mail Or Sms. 3. For That Ld. Ao Erred In Treating The Genuine Purchases Of The Assessee As Bogus & Making Addition Of Rs. 49,26,85,000 As Bogus Purchase U/S 68. For That Ld. Ao Erred In Treating The Amount Of Sundry Creditors Of Rs. 14,16,17,433 As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68. 4. For That Ld. Ao Erred In Invoking The Provisions Of Section 14A Read With Rule 8D Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & In Disallowing An Amount Of Rs. 22,150. 5. For That The Appellant Craves Leaves To Add, Alter Or Amend Any Ground Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri K.M. Roy, A/RFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT D/R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

that Ld. AO erred in treating the genuine purchases of the assessee as bogus and making addition of Rs. 49,26,85,000 as bogus purchase u/s 68. For that Ld. AO erred in treating the amount of Sundry Creditors of Rs. 14,16,17,433 as unexplained Cash Credit ... that ld. AO erred in treating the genuine purchases of the assessee as bogus and making addition of Rs.49,26,85,000/- as bogus purchase u/s. 68. (4) For that ld. AO erred in treating the amount of sundry creditors of Rs.14,16,17,433/- as unexplained cash credit

Mr. Jafarali Anwarullah Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 26 (1) (4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2580/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemr. Jafarali Anwarullah Vs. Ito, Ward – 26(1)(4) Khan.Room No. 6, Uday Room No. 607, 6Th Narain Chawal Kerali Floor, Mittal Aayurved Road, Sakinaka, Prachar Sansthan Mumbai-400072. Bldg, Charni Road, Mumbai-400004. Pan/Gir No. : Aqcpk5335Q Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Shri.S. L Jain.ARFor Respondent: Shri G.J. Ninawe. Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 234ASection 271

unjustified. (2) On the Facts and circumstances of case Learned Assessing officer and CIT (A) erred in making addition of 1875390/- as a bogus Purchases, which is unjustified and Arbitrary. Mr. Jafarali Anwarullah Khan, Mumbai. (3) On the Facts and circumstances of the case Assessing officer erred in Law leaving ... opportunity of hearing. Finally the AO has made best judgment assessment and relied on the information available on record and made disallowance of alleged bogus purchases of Rs.18,75,390/- and assessed the total income of Rs. 21,65,790/- and passed the order u/sec 144 r.w.s

Anil Dadarao Garad, Ambernath vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Kalyan

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

ITA 2607/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Anil Dadarao Garad Ito, Ward 2(1), W-34, Morivali, Midc, Kalyan Vs. Ambernath, Thane-421 501

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69C

Dadarao Garad vs. ITO that the impugned amount has already been brought to tax during A.Ys. 2009-10, 2010- 11 and 2011-12 as bogus purchases. 4. The brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and had filed his return of income dated 30.11.2014, declaring total income

Jmd Corporation of India Limited, Mumbai vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal-2, Mumbai

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

ITA 2241/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhjmd Corporation Of India Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Limited, Flat No. Ward 1(4), Ashar I. T. 204/205, Bldg No. B-2, Park, 6Th Floor, B Wing, Garden Enclave, Vasant Room No. 11, Road No. Vihar, Thane (W), 16Z, Wagle Industrial Maharashtra – 400610 Estate, Thane (W) 400604 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaccj1370M Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Ruchi Rathod Respondent By : Ujjawal Kumar Chavhan Date Of Hearing 27.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.11.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Thane, Dated 03.08.2020 For A.Y. 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “A. The Appellant States & Submits That, The Assessing Officer & The Appellate Authority Erred In Creating & Upholding Addition Alleging Bogus Purchases Solely Based On The Investigation Of Third Party Investigating Agency (Sales Tax Department) & Without Making Any Further Inquiries To Substantiate Such Additions. B. The Appellant States & Submits That, The Assessing Officer & The Appellate Authority Erred In Ignoring The Fact That The Appellant Had Already Paid Mvat To The Sales Tax Department On The Impugned Transactions & Erred In Not Reducing The Said Amount From The Additions.

For Appellant: Ruchi RathodFor Respondent: Ujjawal Kumar Chavhan
Section 144Section 148

grounds before us: “a. The Appellant states and submits that, the Assessing Officer and the Appellate Authority erred in creating and upholding addition alleging bogus purchases solely based on the investigation of third party investigating agency (Sales Tax Department) and without making any further inquiries to substantiate such additions ... Appellant states and submits that, the Assessing Officer and the Appellate Authority erred in creating and upholding addition alleging bogus purchases solely on the basis of third party statement, i.e, statement recorded by the Proprietor of M/s Akash Steel Traders. d. The Appellant states and submits that, the Assessing Officer

Income-Tax Officer vs. Shri Nitin Ramdeoji Lohia, Nashik

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1409/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)

other recent decision in [2019] 103 taxmann.com 459 (Bom.) PCIT vs. Mohammad Haji Adam & Co. has rejected applicability thereof in a similar case of bogus purchases in trading business as under : “8 In the present case, as noted above, the assessee was a trader of fabrics. The A.O. found three ... with law. We thus adopt their lordships’ detailed discussion mutatis mutandis to conclude that there is no need for us to revive the entire bogus purchase disallowances in very terms. 5. Mr. Jasnani next submitted that the CIT(A) herein has erred in law and on facts in restricting

Income-Tax Officer vs. Shri Nitin Ramdeoji Lohia, Nashik

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1408/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)

other recent decision in [2019] 103 taxmann.com 459 (Bom.) PCIT vs. Mohammad Haji Adam & Co. has rejected applicability thereof in a similar case of bogus purchases in trading business as under : “8 In the present case, as noted above, the assessee was a trader of fabrics. The A.O. found three ... with law. We thus adopt their lordships’ detailed discussion mutatis mutandis to conclude that there is no need for us to revive the entire bogus purchase disallowances in very terms. 5. Mr. Jasnani next submitted that the CIT(A) herein has erred in law and on facts in restricting

Income-Tax Officer vs. Shri Nitin Ramdeoji Lohia, Nashik

Appeals are partly allowed in above terms

ITA 1407/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)

other recent decision in [2019] 103 taxmann.com 459 (Bom.) PCIT vs. Mohammad Haji Adam & Co. has rejected applicability thereof in a similar case of bogus purchases in trading business as under : “8 In the present case, as noted above, the assessee was a trader of fabrics. The A.O. found three ... with law. We thus adopt their lordships’ detailed discussion mutatis mutandis to conclude that there is no need for us to revive the entire bogus purchase disallowances in very terms. 5. Mr. Jasnani next submitted that the CIT(A) herein has erred in law and on facts in restricting

Income Tax Officer-19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sadaf Trading Company, Mumbai

ITA 2310/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Anant Shejale, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajeya Kumar Ojha, D.R
Section 144Section 147

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was erred in deleting the addition made on account 2 M/s. Sadaf Trading Company of bogus purchase @ 100% of total bogus purchase ignoring the fact that the Sales Tax Department has proved beyond doubt that the parties declared as hawala traders were ... addition made by the Assessing Officer without appreciating the facts that during the assessment proceedings assessee has failed to substantiate the sales corresponding to bogus purchases whereas the Ld.CIT(A) has relied on the case law's relevant to the cases wherein the assessee submitted its reply of bogus purchases

M/S. Boscon Leather Products (P) Ltd., North 24 Pgs vs. DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata.

In the result, all these appeals raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 826/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleita Nos. 822 To 826/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 To 2016-17 M/S. Boscon Leather Products Pvt. Dcit, Cir-11(1), Ltd. Kolkata Haripada Biswas Sarani, Michael Vs. Nagar, Sahara, North 24 Pgs. – 700133. Pan: Aabcb 1409 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Respondent By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dt. 14/06/2023 For Assessment Year 2012- 13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Respectively. Since The Facts & Issues Are Identical & Similar In Nature, Therefore Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Taken As The Lead Case & The Result Of The Same Shall Be Followed For Subsequent Assessment Years I.E., 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 145(3)Section 147

basis of specific information received from ld. DDIT (Inv.), Kolkata, that the assessee has shown to have made bogus purchases from three different concerns of Shri Sanjiw Kumar Singh, who when searched by the Department gave statement that he and his concerns are providing accommodation entries in lieu of commission

M/S. Boscon Leather Products (P) Ltd., North 24 Pgs vs. DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata.

In the result, all these appeals raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 825/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleita Nos. 822 To 826/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 To 2016-17 M/S. Boscon Leather Products Pvt. Dcit, Cir-11(1), Ltd. Kolkata Haripada Biswas Sarani, Michael Vs. Nagar, Sahara, North 24 Pgs. – 700133. Pan: Aabcb 1409 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Respondent By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dt. 14/06/2023 For Assessment Year 2012- 13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Respectively. Since The Facts & Issues Are Identical & Similar In Nature, Therefore Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Taken As The Lead Case & The Result Of The Same Shall Be Followed For Subsequent Assessment Years I.E., 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 145(3)Section 147

basis of specific information received from ld. DDIT (Inv.), Kolkata, that the assessee has shown to have made bogus purchases from three different concerns of Shri Sanjiw Kumar Singh, who when searched by the Department gave statement that he and his concerns are providing accommodation entries in lieu of commission

M/S. Boscon Leather Products Pvt. Ltd., North 24Pgs vs. DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kol, Kolkata

In the result, all these appeals raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 824/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleita Nos. 822 To 826/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 To 2016-17 M/S. Boscon Leather Products Pvt. Dcit, Cir-11(1), Ltd. Kolkata Haripada Biswas Sarani, Michael Vs. Nagar, Sahara, North 24 Pgs. – 700133. Pan: Aabcb 1409 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Respondent By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dt. 14/06/2023 For Assessment Year 2012- 13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Respectively. Since The Facts & Issues Are Identical & Similar In Nature, Therefore Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Taken As The Lead Case & The Result Of The Same Shall Be Followed For Subsequent Assessment Years I.E., 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 145(3)Section 147

basis of specific information received from ld. DDIT (Inv.), Kolkata, that the assessee has shown to have made bogus purchases from three different concerns of Shri Sanjiw Kumar Singh, who when searched by the Department gave statement that he and his concerns are providing accommodation entries in lieu of commission

M/S. Boscon Leather Products Pvt. Ltd., North 24 Pgs vs. DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kol, Kolkata

In the result, all these appeals raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 823/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleita Nos. 822 To 826/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 To 2016-17 M/S. Boscon Leather Products Pvt. Dcit, Cir-11(1), Ltd. Kolkata Haripada Biswas Sarani, Michael Vs. Nagar, Sahara, North 24 Pgs. – 700133. Pan: Aabcb 1409 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Respondent By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dt. 14/06/2023 For Assessment Year 2012- 13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Respectively. Since The Facts & Issues Are Identical & Similar In Nature, Therefore Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Taken As The Lead Case & The Result Of The Same Shall Be Followed For Subsequent Assessment Years I.E., 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 145(3)Section 147

basis of specific information received from ld. DDIT (Inv.), Kolkata, that the assessee has shown to have made bogus purchases from three different concerns of Shri Sanjiw Kumar Singh, who when searched by the Department gave statement that he and his concerns are providing accommodation entries in lieu of commission

M/S. Boscon Leather Products (P) Ltd., North 24Pgs vs. DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata.

In the result, all these appeals raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 822/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleita Nos. 822 To 826/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 To 2016-17 M/S. Boscon Leather Products Pvt. Dcit, Cir-11(1), Ltd. Kolkata Haripada Biswas Sarani, Michael Vs. Nagar, Sahara, North 24 Pgs. – 700133. Pan: Aabcb 1409 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Respondent By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dt. 14/06/2023 For Assessment Year 2012- 13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Respectively. Since The Facts & Issues Are Identical & Similar In Nature, Therefore Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Taken As The Lead Case & The Result Of The Same Shall Be Followed For Subsequent Assessment Years I.E., 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 145(3)Section 147

basis of specific information received from ld. DDIT (Inv.), Kolkata, that the assessee has shown to have made bogus purchases from three different concerns of Shri Sanjiw Kumar Singh, who when searched by the Department gave statement that he and his concerns are providing accommodation entries in lieu of commission

Jaisingh H Solanki, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2210/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajeya Kumar Ojha, D.R

were issued. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee the Assessing Officer (AO) proceeded to estimate the addition on bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.33,10,814/- being 12.5% of the total non genuine purchases of Rs.2,64,86,514/- and thereby framed the assessment under section ... also not in dispute that the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition by estimating the gross profit @ 12.5% of the total bogus purchases made by the assessee. 10. In the backdrop of the aforesaid undisputed facts the assessee in its written submissions, submitted that in view of the decision

Ram Chand Panjwani, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 151/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 151/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ram Chand Panjwani M/S. Gurunanak Rice Mill, Vill : Tulshi, P.O. Tilda, Neora, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Afbpp5595D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)

case and in law, ld. AO & ld. CIT(A) has erred in treating the purchases of Rs.82,75,000 from 4 parties as 'bogus purchases'; disallowing of Rs.20,68,750, which is 25% of Rs.82,75,000; arbitrary/ baseless estimation of 25% is on mere presumption, surmises and without having ... Anuga etc. were not available with the assessee. Accordingly, the A.O was of the view that as the assessee as in a case where bogus purchase bills were procured, had failed to support his claim of having made genuine purchases from the aforementioned 4 parties by producing delivery challans

Thakorbhai & Company, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Navsari

In the result, ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 641/SRT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Thakorbhai & Company, I.T.O., 1, Amalsad Market Yard, Opp. Rly Ward-5, Vs. Station, Amalsad, Gandevi, Gujarat. Navsari. Pan No. Aabft 4392 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

assessee submits that while passing the assessment order, the Assessing Officer Thakorbhai & Company Vs ITO made addition on account of bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer disallowed 50% of such purchases of Rs. 77,03,224/- thereby made addition of Rs. 38,51,612/-. 3. On appeal before