← 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

Measage G H Agro Products Private Limited, Amritsar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Amritsar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 19/ASR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 144Section 250(6)

upheld by the Sir, it is submitted that during purchases made during the year worthy CIT(A) the year under consideration treated as bogus purchases u/s assessee company made 69C purchases from several suppliers and there is no incriminating document found during search which suggest that assessee company indulge ... bogus purchases. Further the Ld. Authorities accepted the sales made corresponding to that purchases, opening and closing stock has been accepted and creditors and debtors has been accepted, which has duly been recorded in the books of assess company and reflected in the P&L Account and Balance sheet

Measeg G.H Agro Products Private Limited, Amritsar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Amritsar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 18/ASR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 144Section 250(6)

upheld by the Sir, it is submitted that during purchases made during the year worthy CIT(A) the year under consideration treated as bogus purchases u/s assessee company made 69C purchases from several suppliers and there is no incriminating document found during search which suggest that assessee company indulge ... bogus purchases. Further the Ld. Authorities accepted the sales made corresponding to that purchases, opening and closing stock has been accepted and creditors and debtors has been accepted, which has duly been recorded in the books of assess company and reflected in the P&L Account and Balance sheet

Measage G.H Agro Products Private Limited, Amritsar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Amritsar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 17/ASR/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 144Section 250(6)

upheld by the Sir, it is submitted that during purchases made during the year worthy CIT(A) the year under consideration treated as bogus purchases u/s assessee company made 69C purchases from several suppliers and there is no incriminating document found during search which suggest that assessee company indulge ... bogus purchases. Further the Ld. Authorities accepted the sales made corresponding to that purchases, opening and closing stock has been accepted and creditors and debtors has been accepted, which has duly been recorded in the books of assess company and reflected in the P&L Account and Balance sheet

Measage Sat Kartar Solvex Private Limited, Ferozepur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Amritsar

In the result, the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and appeals of assessee are allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 16/ASR/2020[2001-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Jun 2023AY 2001-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 144Section 250(6)

upheld by the Sir, it is submitted that during purchases made during the year worthy CIT(A) the year under consideration treated as bogus purchases u/s assessee company made 69C purchases from several suppliers and there is no incriminating document found during search which suggest that assessee company indulge ... bogus purchases. Further the Ld. Authorities accepted the sales made corresponding to that purchases, opening and closing stock has been accepted and creditors and debtors has been accepted, which has duly been recorded in the books of assess company and reflected in the P&L Account and Balance sheet

Shri Nirmal Sharad Mutha, Ahmednagar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- Ahmednagar, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 125/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Hon.Vice- & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon. & Nirmal Sharad Mutha, Vs Acit, Ahmednagar Circle, Plot No.83, Manik Nagar, Ahmednagar. Nagar-Pune Road, Ahmednagar. Pan: Afvpm 3572 R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prasad S. Bhandari, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde, Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/06/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/06/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Pune, Dated 03.03.2020 For A.Y.2012-13 As Per The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S. Bhandari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde, DR
Section 132Section 14ASection 68

Siroya had admitted that accommodation entries were passed to all claimed "Loans & Advances" in his balance sheet along with the modus-operandi of the bogus purchases and sales and the assessee is also among one of 4 Nirmal Sharad Mutha such beneficiaries, however, Shri Ritesh Siroya retracted from his statement

Smt. Sapna Gupta, Haridwar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Incoem Tax, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 16/DDN/2021[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun08 Jun 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Sapna Gupta, Vs The Pr. Cit, 299, Awas Vikas Colony, Dehradun. Vivek Vihar, Haridwar – 249 407, Uttarakhand. Pan: Acspg4083D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Deepashri Rao, Ca Revenue By : Shri N.S. Jangpangi, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.16/Ddn/2021 For Ay 2009-10 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dehradun, [Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Pcit‟, In Short] In Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2020- 21/1031815348(1) Dated 27.03.2021 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 148/147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As „The Act‟) Dated 26Th/28Th December, 2018 By The Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward 1(3)(3), Haridwar (Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Ao‟). 2. The Only Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld. Pcit Was Justified In Invoking Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act In Respect Of Disallowance Of Purchases Of Rs 33,35,500/- In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri N.S. Jangpangi, CIT, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(2)

passed under section 147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue on the issue of alleged bogus „purchases‟ made from one M/s Meet Enterprises. 2 2.1. That the PCIT exceeded his jurisdiction in setting aside the reassessment order on the issue ... alleged bogus „purchases‟ from M/s Meet Enterprises, despite the fact that the issue in reassessment proceedings was restricted only to alleged bogus „payments‟ made to the said party. 2.2. That the PCIT failed to appreciate that the issue of disallowance of alleged bogus purchases from M/s Meet Enterprises

Sagar International, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Offficer-19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 964/MUM/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2023AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmansagar International Ito – 19(3)(1) C/O Himanshu Gandhi 2Nd Floor, बनाम/ Ca, 16Th Floor D Wing, Matru Mandir, Vs. Trade World Tower, Nana Chowk, Kamala Mills, Grant Road (W), Compound, Mumbai-400007. Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafs6934R (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Mr. Himanshu Gandhi.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

genuineness of the transactions with the parties. The A.O. has dealt exhaustively on the details, facts and modus operandi of entry providers in obtaining bogus purchase bills, investigation report and statements recorded. Finally, the AO was not satisfied with the explanations and the evidences and treated the transactions of purchases ... erred in sustaining the addition as unsecured loans, whereas the assessee has made purchases from the parties and it was alleged as bogus purchases by the revenue.The Ld. AR emphasized that the transactions entered by the assesse are disallowed by the revenue authorities without any proper inquires though the assesse

Mafatlal Harakchandji Bothra, Mumbai vs. I.T.O.-19(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1002/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemaftlal Harkchandji Ito – 19(2)(3) Bothrac/O. D.C 2Nd Floor, बनाम/ Bothra & Co. Llp (Cp) Matru Mandir, Vs. (Formerly Known As Tardeo Road, D.C Bothra & Co), Mumbai-400007. 297, Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion, Opp Bank Of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400004. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aggpb3538C (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Mr. Rajkumar Singh.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

paper book and judicial decisions and prayed for allowing the assessee appeal. Contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the assessee has indulged in alleged bogus purchases and relied on the order of the CIT(A). 4 Mafatlal Harkchandji Bothra, Mumbai 5. Heard the rival submissions and perused the material ... record. Prima-facie the Ld. AR contentions are that the CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition @ 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases irrespective of the fact that the assessee has submitted the details. The Ld.AR emphasized that the assessee has maintained books of accounts and referred to page

Bhavesh Punmaji Devasi, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1) (2), Mumbai

ITA 1693/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S.D. Pathak, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, D.R
Section 147

make some alternate arrangements and consequently the Ld. CIT(A) got annoyed and decided the appeal on 07.08.2019 by making 100% addition of bogus purchases as against addition of 12.5% made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on the alleged bogus purchases that all the papers/bills were in the possession ... Punmaji Devasi Tax Department and Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation), Mumbai [DGIT (Inv.)] that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries of the bogus purchase bills during the year under consideration, the assessment was reopened by initiating the proceedings under section 147/148 of the Act. In response

Kl Crescent Infrastructure Pvt Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-15(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 172/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blekl Crescent Infrastructure Pvt Ltd V. Ito 15(2)(1) A-390/39, Ttc Industrial Zone Aayakar Bhavan Midc, Mahape, Post Ghansoli Mumbai- 400020 Navi Mumbai- 400701 Pan: Aadck3832C (Appellant) (Respondent) Kl Crescent Infrastructure Pvt Ltd V. Acit 15(2)(2) A-390/39, Ttc Industrial Zone Aayakar Bhavan Midc, Mahape, Post Ghansoli Mumbai- 400020 Navi Mumbai- 400701 Pan: Aadck3832C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing Rs. 8,22,77,351/- as alleged bogus purchases being 100% of the total purchases amounting to Rs. 8,22,77,351/- a. By disregarding the case of M/s Haji Mohd Adam which was also ... this regard. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in disallowing Rs. 20804303/- as alleged bogus purchases being 100% of the total purchases amounting to Rs. 20804303/- a. By disregarding the case of M/s Haji Mohd Adam which was also followed

DCIT-17(1), Mumbai vs. Navkar Agebcies, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – 17(1) V. M/S. Navkar Agencies C/7, Vireshwar Chaya Room No. 117, 1St Floor Tejpal Road, Vile Parle (E) G-Block, Kautilya Bhavan Mumbai - 400057 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Aacfn3354L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 69C

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance made on account of bogus purchases as unexplained expenditure incurred on purchases corresponding to bogus purchases debited in books of accounts from grey market under provisions of Section ... Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to rebut the findings of Sales Tax Department vis-a- vis bogus purchases and overlooking the explicit findings of the investigation carried out by Sales Tax Department and corroborated by the enquiries of the Assessing Officer

Satyaprakash Maruti Prasad Sharma, Mumbai vs. ACIT-20(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 298/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.298/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Satyaprakash Maruti Prasad बिधम/ Acit-20(3) Sharma R. No. 615, 6Th Floor, Vs. 55/4, Rishikesh Bhawan, Piramal Chambers, Aai Mai Merwanji Street, Lalbaug, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400012. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aljps5054L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punamiya Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 10.01.2023 Passed For Ay 2010-11. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Of Rs.41,79,889/- On Account Of Bogus Purchases. 3. Brief Facts As Noted By The Ao Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In The Business As Works Contractor (For Supply Of Display Counters By Making It At The Site Of Customer). The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income On 12.10.2010 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.34,12,777/- Which Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). Later, An Information Was Received From The Office Of Dgit(Inv.), Mumbai That The Assessee Was Engaged In Showing Bogus Purchases & Is A Beneficiary Of Such Transaction. The Ao Has Taken Note Of Fifteen (15) Parties From Whom It Was Alleged

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

main grievance of the assessee is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.41,79,889/- on account of bogus purchases. 3. Brief facts as noted by the AO are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business as works contractor (for supply ... hereinafter “the Act”). Later, an information was received from the office of DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai that the assessee was engaged in showing bogus purchases and is a beneficiary of such transaction. The AO has taken note of fifteen (15) parties from whom it was alleged 2 A.Y. 2010-11 Satyaprakash

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Kundan Jewellers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1035/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Circle – 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Kundan Jewellers Room No. 561, 5Th Floor Pvt Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, Mk 223, Sm Patil Bldg, Sv Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400058. Pan/Gir No. : Aabck5770H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nihar Ranjan Samal.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Siddharth Kothari.Ar Date Of Hearing 19.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29 .05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Nihar Ranjan Samal.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Siddharth Kothari.AR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

addition was to be deleted - Held, yes [Para 15.1] [In favour of assessee] III. Section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained expenditure (Bogus purchases) - Assessment years 2015- 16 to 2017-18 - Assessee-company was engaged in business of selling dry fruits Assessing Officer made addition on - account ... bogus purchases at rate of 25 per cent of purchases made by assessee from certain parties but sales made to these parties were completely ignored It was - found that purchases and sales with alleged bogus parties were supported by bills and vouchers as well as stock register was maintained

Arif Noormohammed Basathia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-31(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 852/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms. Padmavathy Sarif Noor Mohammed Ito-31(1)(2), Basathia,Gala No.198, Pratyakhakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Ghaswala Compound, Bkc, Bandra East, Vs. Oshiwara, Jogeshwari, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400102. स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aevpb4123N (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Ms.Neelam Jadhav.Ar अपीलाथी ओर से / Appellant By : Mr.Anil Gupta.Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By :

For Appellant: Mr.Anil Gupta.DR
Section 250

aside and one more opportunity may be given to appellant. 4 Arif Noor Mohammed Basathia II. Additions surrounding purchases alleged to be unproven / bogus purchases: Rs.6.36,037 (GP Addition and Unexplained Cash Expenditure) 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer has erred ... received information from Sales Tax Department, Mumbai and office of DCIT(Inv.), Mumbai that the assessee was engaged in obtaining the accommodation entries/ bogus purchase bills of Rs.26,38,295/- from the dealers and is a beneficiary. The AO has reason to believe that the income has escaped the assessment

Fab Trade Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 15(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 564/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms. Padmavathy Sfab Trade Pvt.Ltd., Ito-15(1)(2), 610, Thacker Tower Room No.15B, बनाम/ Chs, Plot No.86, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Sector-17, Vashi, Mahrishi Karve Road, Navi Mumbai-400703. Mumbai-400020. स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcf1786A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) अपीलाथी ओर से / Appellant By : None Ms.Vranda U Matkari.Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By :

For Appellant: None
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer(AO) has received information from Sales tax department that the assessee has obtained bogus purchase bills/accommodation entries of Rs.56,26,761/-. Therefore, the AO has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice ... assessee has submitted that available information to substantiate the purchases and the AO found that the assessee has obtained bogus purchases bills form four parties aggregating to Rs.56,26,761/- and to test check the genuineness of the transactions, the AO has issued the notice and there was no response

Mukesh Vinodkumar Singh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 2(5). Thane, Mumbai

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

ITA 38/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.38/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Mukesh Vinodkumar Singh बिधम/ Ito-2(5), Thane Gala No. 5 Saisneha Cit/Nfac. Vs. Industrial Estate Near Ekvira Gas Godown Bhayander (E), Mumbai- 401105. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bmpps6780N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri D. C. Saboo & Shyam Saboo Revenue By: Shri Anil Gupta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 29.11.2022 For Ay. 2009-10. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao By Making Addition Of 100% Alleged Bogus Purchases While Accepting The Sales Shown By The Assessee. 3. Brief Facts As Noted By The Ao Is That The Assessee Had Filed Roi Declaring Total Income At Rs.3,99,174/- On 29.09.2009 For Ay. 2009-10 Which Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). Later, The Ao Received An Information From The Maharashtra Sales Tax Department, Mumbai That Certain Persons Were Providing Accommodation Entries/Bills To Facilitate Beneficiaries Like Assessee To Book Bogus Purchases In The Books Without Actual

For Appellant: Shri D. C. Saboo & Shyam SabooFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

assessee is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO by making addition of 100% alleged bogus purchases while accepting the sales shown by the assessee. 3. Brief facts as noted by the AO is that the assessee had filed ROI declaring total income ... received an information from the Maharashtra Sales Tax Department, Mumbai that certain persons were providing accommodation entries/bills to facilitate beneficiaries like assessee to book bogus purchases in the books without actual 2 A.Y. 2010-11 Mukesh Vinodkumar Singh purchases/delivery of goods. Based on the information, the assessee’s assessment

Ravi Kedia, Baloda Bazar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Bhatapara, Baloda Bazar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 111/RPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 111/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ravi Kedia, Ekdand Chawal Udyog, Village Risda, Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh-493 332 Pan : Ajrpk5750D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Bhatapara (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

premises of five rice millers a/w. two brokers on 15.03.2016, it was gathered by the A.O that the assessee as a beneficiary had procured bogus purchase 3 Ravi Kedia Vs. ITO, Ward- Bhatapara bills of a value of Rs.30,12,000/- during the year under consideration from two parties. Acting ... parties under the IDS, 2016. It was observed by the A.O that the disclosure made by the assessee under IDS, 2016 on account of bogus purchases in itself established that he had not made genuine 4 Ravi Kedia Vs. ITO, Ward- Bhatapara purchases from the aforementioned parties. Apart from that

Income Tax Office-20(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Crystal Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 823/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms. Padmavathy Sito-20(1)(1), M/S. Crystal 110,1St Floor, Piramal Corporation, 4A/4B, बनाम/ Chamber, Ground Floor, Opp. Vs. Lalbaug,Parel, Annex Building, Old Mumbai-400012. Anjirwadi, Mazgaon, Mumbai-400010. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacfc7226Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri.Anil Gupta.Dr ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : None. सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 22/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale - Jm: The Revenue Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2011-12. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. "Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Correct In Restricting The Addition Made On Account Of Bogus Purchase To 6% Of Total Bogus Purchases Ignoring The Fact That The Sales

For Appellant: Shri.Anil Gupta.DRFor Respondent: None
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in restricting the addition made on account of bogus purchase to 6% of total bogus purchases ignoring the fact that the Sales 2 Crystal Corporation Tax Department has proved beyond doubt that the parties ... case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in restricting the addition made by the Assessing Officer to 6% of the bogus purchase value without appreciating the judgment in the case of M/s. Vijay Proteins Limited (1996) reported in 25 ITD 428 (Ahd. Tribunal)". 4. "Whether

DCIT C.C. 3(2) `, Mumbai vs. M/S. Viraj Profiles Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2216/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 131Section 133ASection 153ASection 69C

appeals of the assessee, certain common issues are agitated, which are described below:- (a) Partial confirmation of addition relating to alleged bogus purchases. (b) Partial confirmation of addition relating to Corporate Guarantee commission. (c) Partial confirmation of Cash income as per seized materials (d) Disallowance of Salary paid to Jain ... years, i.e., the issues urged by the revenue are common in both the years:- (a) Relief granted in respect of addition relating to alleged bogus purchases 3 Viraj Profiles Limited (b) Relief granted in respect of addition relating to Corporate Guarantee Commission and (c) Relief granted in respect of addition

DCIT C.C. 3(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Viraj Profiles Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2215/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm)

Section 131Section 133ASection 153ASection 69C

appeals of the assessee, certain common issues are agitated, which are described below:- (a) Partial confirmation of addition relating to alleged bogus purchases. (b) Partial confirmation of addition relating to Corporate Guarantee commission. (c) Partial confirmation of Cash income as per seized materials (d) Disallowance of Salary paid to Jain ... years, i.e., the issues urged by the revenue are common in both the years:- (a) Relief granted in respect of addition relating to alleged bogus purchases 3 Viraj Profiles Limited (b) Relief granted in respect of addition relating to Corporate Guarantee Commission and (c) Relief granted in respect of addition