← 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 Aman Marketing Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Circle-3(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5546/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 5544/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2009-10) आअसं. 5545/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2010-11) आअसं. 5546/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2011-12) Ita No.5545/Mum/2019(A.Y 2010-11) M/S. Aman Marketing Services Pvt.Ltd. 115, Sealord A, Cuff Parade, Mumbai 400 005 Pan: Aacfg-0200A ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito, Circle 3(1)(1), Room No.666, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Stany Saldanha ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Beena Santosh सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 27/10/2022

For Appellant: Shri Stany SaldanhaFor Respondent: Ms. Beena Santosh
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

peak credit, i.e. Rs.11,54,999/- under section 69C of the Act. The Assessing Officer also made addition of 4% of alleged bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer further made addition of the alleged commission paid for procuring bogus purchase bills. Such commission was estimated at 1% of the bogus purchases ... NO.5545/MUM/2019(A.Y 2010-11) First Appellate Authority granted part relief to the assessee by restricting addition on account of bogus purchases by estimating suppressed profit @12.5% on such purchases. Thus, the CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs.8,02,556/-. Now, the assessee is in appeal against the findings

M/S Aman Marketing Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Circle-3(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5545/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 5544/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2009-10) आअसं. 5545/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2010-11) आअसं. 5546/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2011-12) Ita No.5545/Mum/2019(A.Y 2010-11) M/S. Aman Marketing Services Pvt.Ltd. 115, Sealord A, Cuff Parade, Mumbai 400 005 Pan: Aacfg-0200A ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito, Circle 3(1)(1), Room No.666, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Stany Saldanha ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Beena Santosh सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 27/10/2022

For Appellant: Shri Stany SaldanhaFor Respondent: Ms. Beena Santosh
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

peak credit, i.e. Rs.11,54,999/- under section 69C of the Act. The Assessing Officer also made addition of 4% of alleged bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer further made addition of the alleged commission paid for procuring bogus purchase bills. Such commission was estimated at 1% of the bogus purchases ... NO.5545/MUM/2019(A.Y 2010-11) First Appellate Authority granted part relief to the assessee by restricting addition on account of bogus purchases by estimating suppressed profit @12.5% on such purchases. Thus, the CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs.8,02,556/-. Now, the assessee is in appeal against the findings

M/S Aman Marketing Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Circle-3(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5544/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 5544/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2009-10) आअसं. 5545/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2010-11) आअसं. 5546/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2011-12) Ita No.5545/Mum/2019(A.Y 2010-11) M/S. Aman Marketing Services Pvt.Ltd. 115, Sealord A, Cuff Parade, Mumbai 400 005 Pan: Aacfg-0200A ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Ito, Circle 3(1)(1), Room No.666, 6Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Stany Saldanha ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Beena Santosh सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 27/10/2022

For Appellant: Shri Stany SaldanhaFor Respondent: Ms. Beena Santosh
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

peak credit, i.e. Rs.11,54,999/- under section 69C of the Act. The Assessing Officer also made addition of 4% of alleged bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer further made addition of the alleged commission paid for procuring bogus purchase bills. Such commission was estimated at 1% of the bogus purchases ... NO.5545/MUM/2019(A.Y 2010-11) First Appellate Authority granted part relief to the assessee by restricting addition on account of bogus purchases by estimating suppressed profit @12.5% on such purchases. Thus, the CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs.8,02,556/-. Now, the assessee is in appeal against the findings

ITO, Ward 2(3)(8), Surat vs. Rakesh Kailashchand Jain, Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 464/SRT/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.449 To 451/Srt/2019 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Rakesh Kailashchand Jain, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), 330, Blue Diamond, Hath Falia, Surat. Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahbpj4326J (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.462 To 464/Srt/2019 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), Vs. Rakesh Kailashchand Jain, Surat. 330, Blue Diamond, Hath Falia, Mahidharpura, Surat- 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahbpj4326J (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/09/2022 21/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(3)

restricting the addition made by the AO to the extent of 5% of entire purchase i.e. Rs.87,92,67,245/- on account of bogus purchase. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the entire ... remained unverifiable and hence undersigned arrived at a conclusion that the purchases shown by the assessee in the books of accounts are initiated and bogus purchases are debited to trading account to suppress the true profits to be disclosed to the Department. (iv) The onus was upon the assessee

ITO, Ward 2(3)(8), Surat vs. Rakesh Kailashchand Jain, Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 463/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.449 To 451/Srt/2019 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Rakesh Kailashchand Jain, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), 330, Blue Diamond, Hath Falia, Surat. Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahbpj4326J (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.462 To 464/Srt/2019 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), Vs. Rakesh Kailashchand Jain, Surat. 330, Blue Diamond, Hath Falia, Mahidharpura, Surat- 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahbpj4326J (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/09/2022 21/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(3)

restricting the addition made by the AO to the extent of 5% of entire purchase i.e. Rs.87,92,67,245/- on account of bogus purchase. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the entire ... remained unverifiable and hence undersigned arrived at a conclusion that the purchases shown by the assessee in the books of accounts are initiated and bogus purchases are debited to trading account to suppress the true profits to be disclosed to the Department. (iv) The onus was upon the assessee

ITO, Ward 2(3)(8), Surat vs. Rakesh Kailashchand Jain, Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 462/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.449 To 451/Srt/2019 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Rakesh Kailashchand Jain, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), 330, Blue Diamond, Hath Falia, Surat. Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahbpj4326J (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.462 To 464/Srt/2019 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), Vs. Rakesh Kailashchand Jain, Surat. 330, Blue Diamond, Hath Falia, Mahidharpura, Surat- 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahbpj4326J (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/09/2022 21/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(3)

restricting the addition made by the AO to the extent of 5% of entire purchase i.e. Rs.87,92,67,245/- on account of bogus purchase. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the entire ... remained unverifiable and hence undersigned arrived at a conclusion that the purchases shown by the assessee in the books of accounts are initiated and bogus purchases are debited to trading account to suppress the true profits to be disclosed to the Department. (iv) The onus was upon the assessee

Rakesh Kailashchand Jain, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 451/SRT/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.449 To 451/Srt/2019 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Rakesh Kailashchand Jain, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), 330, Blue Diamond, Hath Falia, Surat. Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahbpj4326J (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.462 To 464/Srt/2019 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), Vs. Rakesh Kailashchand Jain, Surat. 330, Blue Diamond, Hath Falia, Mahidharpura, Surat- 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahbpj4326J (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/09/2022 21/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(3)

restricting the addition made by the AO to the extent of 5% of entire purchase i.e. Rs.87,92,67,245/- on account of bogus purchase. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the entire ... remained unverifiable and hence undersigned arrived at a conclusion that the purchases shown by the assessee in the books of accounts are initiated and bogus purchases are debited to trading account to suppress the true profits to be disclosed to the Department. (iv) The onus was upon the assessee

Rakesh Kailashchand Jain, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 450/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.449 To 451/Srt/2019 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Rakesh Kailashchand Jain, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), 330, Blue Diamond, Hath Falia, Surat. Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahbpj4326J (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.462 To 464/Srt/2019 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), Vs. Rakesh Kailashchand Jain, Surat. 330, Blue Diamond, Hath Falia, Mahidharpura, Surat- 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahbpj4326J (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/09/2022 21/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(3)

restricting the addition made by the AO to the extent of 5% of entire purchase i.e. Rs.87,92,67,245/- on account of bogus purchase. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the entire ... remained unverifiable and hence undersigned arrived at a conclusion that the purchases shown by the assessee in the books of accounts are initiated and bogus purchases are debited to trading account to suppress the true profits to be disclosed to the Department. (iv) The onus was upon the assessee

Rakesh Kailashchand Jain, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat

In the result the ground No

ITA 449/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.449 To 451/Srt/2019 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) Rakesh Kailashchand Jain, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), 330, Blue Diamond, Hath Falia, Surat. Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahbpj4326J (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.462 To 464/Srt/2019 Assessment Years: (2013-14 To 2015-16) (Physical Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(8), Vs. Rakesh Kailashchand Jain, Surat. 330, Blue Diamond, Hath Falia, Mahidharpura, Surat- 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahbpj4326J (Revenue) (Assessee) Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/09/2022 21/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement

Section 143(3)

restricting the addition made by the AO to the extent of 5% of entire purchase i.e. Rs.87,92,67,245/- on account of bogus purchase. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the entire ... remained unverifiable and hence undersigned arrived at a conclusion that the purchases shown by the assessee in the books of accounts are initiated and bogus purchases are debited to trading account to suppress the true profits to be disclosed to the Department. (iv) The onus was upon the assessee

Remy Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3900/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3898 To 3900/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Principal Commissioner Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Of Income Tax-5 Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 5481 To 5483/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-5(3)(1) Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Room No.573, Aayakar Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bhavan, M. K. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr2195R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiren Vepari Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Hiren VepariFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 147Section 263

merits, the appellant submits that the learned Pr. CIT was not justified on the facts to hold that the appellant indulged into bogus purchases and paid cash for the purchases, particularly and demonstrably the appellant could show that it had paid Rs.2,79,33,584 only through account payee cheque ... operandi of the Shri Bhanwarlal Jain (entry operator to beneficiaries like assessee) and made the addition of Rs.16,84,395/- (ie. estimated @ 6.03% of bogus purchase bills totalling Rs.2,79,33,584/- on the basis of profit embedded in such transaction) by observing as under: - “4.2 During the course

Remy Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3899/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3898 To 3900/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Principal Commissioner Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Of Income Tax-5 Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 5481 To 5483/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-5(3)(1) Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Room No.573, Aayakar Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bhavan, M. K. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr2195R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiren Vepari Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Hiren VepariFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 147Section 263

merits, the appellant submits that the learned Pr. CIT was not justified on the facts to hold that the appellant indulged into bogus purchases and paid cash for the purchases, particularly and demonstrably the appellant could show that it had paid Rs.2,79,33,584 only through account payee cheque ... operandi of the Shri Bhanwarlal Jain (entry operator to beneficiaries like assessee) and made the addition of Rs.16,84,395/- (ie. estimated @ 6.03% of bogus purchase bills totalling Rs.2,79,33,584/- on the basis of profit embedded in such transaction) by observing as under: - “4.2 During the course

Remy Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3898/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3898 To 3900/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Principal Commissioner Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Of Income Tax-5 Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 5481 To 5483/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-5(3)(1) Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Room No.573, Aayakar Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bhavan, M. K. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr2195R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiren Vepari Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Hiren VepariFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 147Section 263

merits, the appellant submits that the learned Pr. CIT was not justified on the facts to hold that the appellant indulged into bogus purchases and paid cash for the purchases, particularly and demonstrably the appellant could show that it had paid Rs.2,79,33,584 only through account payee cheque ... operandi of the Shri Bhanwarlal Jain (entry operator to beneficiaries like assessee) and made the addition of Rs.16,84,395/- (ie. estimated @ 6.03% of bogus purchase bills totalling Rs.2,79,33,584/- on the basis of profit embedded in such transaction) by observing as under: - “4.2 During the course