← 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

Renu Singhal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 36(2), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed accordingly

ITA 1902/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

information received from Investigation Department Notice 4 U/s 147 of The Income Tax Act 1961 , was issued on the allegation that appellant has taken Bogus purchased amounting to Rs 15,75,000/- from M/s Radhika Trading Co. , Case was assessed and addition of Rs 15,75,000/- along with ... case, and in law, the Learned assessing officer has made , erred inter alia in his order that the purchases made by the assessee were "bogus purchases", while not disputing by holding the sales made from these purchases, which are genuine and which were booked in the regular books of accounts

Income Tax Officer, Dhamtari vs. M/S Gopal Rice Industries, Dhamtari

In the result, appeals of the assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 74/RPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.62/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2014-15 M/S. Gopal Rice Industries, Vill. Sambalpur, Raipur Road, Dhamtari (C.G.) Pan :Aabfi4303F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Dhamtari (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.74/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Dhamtari (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Gopal Rice Industries, Vill. Sambalpur, Raipur Road, Dhamtari (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan :Aabfi4303F

For Appellant: Shri G.S Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

annulled. 2. That under the facts and the law, the learned CIT(Appeals) further erred in maintaining addition of Rs.35,73,000/- for alleged bogus purchases @12% on purchase of Rs.2,97,75,000/-, though the sales were accepted, day to day quantity records kept GP already considered in accounts ... justified in deleting the addition of Rs.2,62,02,000/- out of the total addition of Rs.2,97,75,000/- being under bogus purchase ignoring the statements taken on oath by the parties from whom the purchase was made by the assessee firm. 2. Whether in facts

M/S Gopal Rice Industries, Dhamtari vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Dhamtari

In the result, appeals of the assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 62/RPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.62/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2014-15 M/S. Gopal Rice Industries, Vill. Sambalpur, Raipur Road, Dhamtari (C.G.) Pan :Aabfi4303F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Dhamtari (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.74/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Dhamtari (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Gopal Rice Industries, Vill. Sambalpur, Raipur Road, Dhamtari (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan :Aabfi4303F

For Appellant: Shri G.S Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

annulled. 2. That under the facts and the law, the learned CIT(Appeals) further erred in maintaining addition of Rs.35,73,000/- for alleged bogus purchases @12% on purchase of Rs.2,97,75,000/-, though the sales were accepted, day to day quantity records kept GP already considered in accounts ... justified in deleting the addition of Rs.2,62,02,000/- out of the total addition of Rs.2,97,75,000/- being under bogus purchase ignoring the statements taken on oath by the parties from whom the purchase was made by the assessee firm. 2. Whether in facts

Kalpataru Ferroalloys Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 672/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Kalpataru Ferroalloys Limited V. Income Tax Officer – 5(2)(2) 32/34, 2Nd Floor, Keshav Bhavan Mumbai 1St Carpenter Street, Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Aadck4077F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Radha Habe Department Represented By : Nimesh Yadav

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151

learned CIT(A)-10, Mumbai has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.85,37,189/- being 12.5% of Rs. 6,82,97,513/- i.e. alleged bogus purchases, merely on surmises and conjectures and relying upon non jurisdictional High Court decisions and ignoring jurisdictional High Court and Tribunal Decisions.” 4. Assessee further ... Kalpataru Ferroalloys Limited 7. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe that Assessing Officer treated 12.5% of the bogus purchases made from various concerns which appeared as hawala transactions and the Ld.CIT(A) sustained the same. We observe from the comparative chart of G.P. Rates

Bhupendrakumar Chokshi, Vadodara vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 284/AHD/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Dec 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

ground that the appellant has furnished inaccurate particulars of income to the extent of Rs.6,80,400/- on account of alleged bogus purchases. The levy of impugned penalty of Rs.2,31,268/- being bad in law and in facts is prayed to be deleted. 4. Your appellant craves liberty ... assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 05.03.2015 making addition of Rs. 6,80,400/- on account of disallowance of bogus purchases. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) and the said order was thereafter challenged before the Tribunal in the quantum proceedings. The Tribunal

Shri. Poonmaram K. Prajapati, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assseess is allowed

ITA 1953/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleshri Poonam Vs. Ito – 19(2)(5) K.Prajapati Matrumandir, Room 81/83, Room No. 14, 4 No. 210, Tardeo, Kumbharwada, Prabhu Mumbai – 400007. Shri Rammandir Marg, Mumbai – 400004. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agmpp5641C Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr. P.M Gang.Ar Respondent By : Mr. B. Bagchi.Dr

For Appellant: Mr. P.M Gang.ARFor Respondent: Mr. B. Bagchi.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

assessee is one of the beneficiary and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act. The AO found that the assessee has obtained accommodation entries/ bogus purchase bills from six parties aggregating to Rs.63,52,693/- and therefore to test check the genuineness of the transactions, the AO has issued notices ... notice by the assessee in penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The A.O. found that the assessee has entered into bogus purchase transactions and relied on the findings in the assessment as the assessee has not filed the reply/explanations in the penalty proceedings. Finally

M/S Supreme Cad Engineers, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 2473/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

That on the facts & circumstance of the case, The Ld. A.O. has erred in making addition of Rs. 20,25,586/- on A/c of bogus purchases & C1T(A)-17, New Delhi further erred in upholding the addition to the tune ... bogus purchases & balance addition of Rs. 16,20,469/- has been deleted. 2 ITA.No.2473/Del./2016 3. The Ld. CIT(A)-17 is totally unjustified in upholding the addition of Rs. 4,05,117/- where there is no bogus purchase as the assessee’s sale have been accepted. The additions

Shri Sham Sunder Aggarwal, Kapurthala vs. Income Tax Officer Ward - 2, Kapurthala

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 537/ASR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

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

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

received from the I.T.A. No.537/Asr/2019 3 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sales Tax Department of State Authority. The reopening was made on basis of the bogus purchased made by assessee amount of Rs.3,70,99,200/- from 43 parties. In assessment proceeding, the verification was completed from the State Tax Authority ... separately from the parties of assessee by the ld. AO. The ld. AO retracted from his own findings related bogus purchase and the addition was made on the basis input VAT of the 43 parties from whom the purchase was made. The amount of input VAT was Rs.14

M/S. Ratnaveer Stainless Products Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Baroda

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

ITA 1116/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri B.P. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vijay Proteins Limited vs. ACIT, 58 ITD 428 the GP estimated was @ 25% in case of bogus purchases and, therefore, the addition was that of 23.4% which is correctly made by the Assessing Officer. 10. We have head both the parties

M/S. Ramniklal Sivji Savla, Mumbai vs. CIT (A)-30, Mumbai

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

ITA 1261/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2022AY 2009-10
Section 143(1)Section 148

assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in partially confirming the addition relating to the alleged bogus purchases. 2. The facts relating to the issue are stated in brief. The assessee is a trader in ferrous and non-ferrous metal. He filed its return of income ... accordingly made addition of Rs. 43,40,981/-. 3. The learned CIT(A) restricted the addition to 12.50% of the value of the alleged bogus purchases. Still aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. It was noticed that the copy of order of the learned

M/S Manisha Construction Compnay, Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT, Circle-26 (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2570/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri M.Balaganeshmanisha Constuction Vs. Asst.Cit, Circle -26(1), Mumabi Company, Room No.408, Aayakar Bhavan 10, Chartered House, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Ground Floor, Dr C.H. Street, Near Dolours Church, Mumbai-400 002 Pan/Gir No. Aabfm4710G (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

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

justified in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act in respect of addition sustained in respect of bogus purchases on an estimated basis. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. 4. We have heard the ld. DR and perused the materials available on record ... levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act in the sum of Rs 37,805/- on the sustained addition made on account of bogus purchases on an estimated basis. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the levy of penalty despite the fact that the addition has been ultimately sustained only

Mohammad Sharique, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-32(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 592/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 592/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mohammad Sharique Income Tax Officer, Ward-32(1), Kolkata 64, Mozaffar Ahmed Street Vs Ripon Street Kolkata - 700016 [Pan : Bjxps2070R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Purbayan Basu, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/12/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/12/2022 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. 15/09/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. That In The Facts The Order U/S 250 Passed By The Ld Cit Appeal (Nfac) Was Wrong, Unjustified & Contrary To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. The Ld. Cit Erred To Confirm The Addition Of Rs.4175060 Without Any Speaking Order On Its Merit Is Erroneous, Arbitrary & Bad In Law. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Modify Or Delete Any Grounds At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Purbayan Basu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69

balance of sundry creditors for the current year with that of the preceding year and the increased amount of sundry creditors was treated as bogus purchases. There is no specific finding by the ld. Assessing Officer for the particular sundry creditor and the addition has been made by giving

Pravina Chandrakant Shah, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 2(1)., Nashik

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 747/PUN/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Dec 2022AY 2011-12
Section 147

Rs.32,90,120/- on account of hawala purchases. The factual matrix of the case is that the assessee was found to have received bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs.32,90,120/- through hawala transactions. After initiating the re-assessment proceedings, the AO made addition for the said ... been affirmed at the same level. The point raised herein is against the addition on account of profit on hawala purchases. The issue of bogus purchases and the consequential addition came up for consideration before the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in Pr. CIT & Ors. vs. Mohammad Haji Adam

Pravina Chandrakant Shah, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 2(1)., Nashik

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 746/PUN/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Dec 2022AY 2010-11
Section 147

Rs.32,90,120/- on account of hawala purchases. The factual matrix of the case is that the assessee was found to have received bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs.32,90,120/- through hawala transactions. After initiating the re-assessment proceedings, the AO made addition for the said ... been affirmed at the same level. The point raised herein is against the addition on account of profit on hawala purchases. The issue of bogus purchases and the consequential addition came up for consideration before the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in Pr. CIT & Ors. vs. Mohammad Haji Adam

Nishant Murar Latke, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, this ground is “Dismissed”

ITA 2446/MUM/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2022AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2446/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Nishant Murar Latke बिधम/ Ito, Ward-3(3) 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, 01, Narayan Nagar Chs Vs. Ltd, Near Hanuman Nagar, Murbad Road, Kalyan Katemnivali, Kalyan- West. 421306. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abtpl6021E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharan Gandhi Revenue By: Smt. Nayana K. Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/12/2022 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 29.06.2022 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao Disallowing The Claim Of Purchase From Two Companies On The Allegation That It Was Bogus Purchases (Accommodation Entry); The Companies From Whom Purchases Were Disallowed Are (I) M/S. Vijay Sagar Trading Pvt. Ltd. To The Tune Of Rs.4,88,700/- & (Ii) M/S. Manibhadra Sales Pvt. Ltd. To The Tune Of Rs.10,14,525/- (Total Rs.15,03,225/-).

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Smt. Nayana K. Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 69C

confirming the action of the AO disallowing the claim of purchase from two companies on the allegation that it was bogus purchases (accommodation entry); The companies from whom purchases were disallowed are (i) M/s. Vijay Sagar Trading Pvt. Ltd. to the tune of Rs.4,88,700/- and (ii) M/s. Manibhadra ... Department (Maharashtra), the assessee’s case was reopened. According to the information from the Sales Tax Department, the assessee was a beneficiary of bogus purchase bills from accommodation entry providers to the tune of Rs.15,03,225/-[ i.e, from M/s. Vijay Sagar Trading Pvt. Ltd and M/s. Manibhadra Sales

Acil Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6968/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharma[Assessment Year: 2009-10]

Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

leading to the levy of penalty are that in this case the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,64,05,766/- on account of bogus purchases. Upon assessee’s appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) in his appellate order held that the whole amount cannot be added to the income because ... hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records. We note that as against the addition of Rs.1,64,05,766/- on account of bogus purchases. The Ld. CIT(A) held that only net profit rate on this amount is to be disallowed. Hence, Ld. CIT(A) granted a relief

Asst CIT CC 1 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Poonam Skyline Construction, Mumbai

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

ITA 752/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2012-13
Section 132(1)Section 133A

department of Maharashtra Government, as concerns providing accommodation sales bills without actually supplying the materials. The AO disallowed entire amount of alleged bogus purchases. The assessing officer also estimated commission expenses that would have been incurred by the assessee in procuring bogus purchase bills and added the same ... corresponding interest disallowance and addition of estimated commission expenses were also deleted by Ld CIT(A). With regard to the addition relating to bogus purchases, the first appellate authority restricted the addition to 12.50% of the amount of alleged bogus purchases. The revenue is aggrieved by the decisions so rendered

Asst CIT CC 1 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Poonam Shanti Developers, Mumbai

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

ITA 751/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2013-14
Section 132(1)Section 133A

department of Maharashtra Government, as concerns providing accommodation sales bills without actually supplying the materials. The AO disallowed entire amount of alleged bogus purchases. The assessing officer also estimated commission expenses that would have been incurred by the assessee in procuring bogus purchase bills and added the same ... corresponding interest disallowance and addition of estimated commission expenses were also deleted by Ld CIT(A). With regard to the addition relating to bogus purchases, the first appellate authority restricted the addition to 12.50% of the amount of alleged bogus purchases. The revenue is aggrieved by the decisions so rendered

Asst CIT CC 1 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Poonam Realty, Mumbai

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

ITA 750/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2014-15
Section 132(1)Section 133A

department of Maharashtra Government, as concerns providing accommodation sales bills without actually supplying the materials. The AO disallowed entire amount of alleged bogus purchases. The assessing officer also estimated commission expenses that would have been incurred by the assessee in procuring bogus purchase bills and added the same ... corresponding interest disallowance and addition of estimated commission expenses were also deleted by Ld CIT(A). With regard to the addition relating to bogus purchases, the first appellate authority restricted the addition to 12.50% of the amount of alleged bogus purchases. The revenue is aggrieved by the decisions so rendered

Asst CIT CC 1 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Poonam Mega Developers, Mumbai

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

ITA 749/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2022AY 2012-13
Section 132(1)Section 133A

department of Maharashtra Government, as concerns providing accommodation sales bills without actually supplying the materials. The AO disallowed entire amount of alleged bogus purchases. The assessing officer also estimated commission expenses that would have been incurred by the assessee in procuring bogus purchase bills and added the same ... corresponding interest disallowance and addition of estimated commission expenses were also deleted by Ld CIT(A). With regard to the addition relating to bogus purchases, the first appellate authority restricted the addition to 12.50% of the amount of alleged bogus purchases. The revenue is aggrieved by the decisions so rendered