← 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

Samrat Bhupendra Sheth, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 32(3) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1512/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesamrat Bhupendra Sheth Vs. Ito, Ward – 32(3)(2) A-1403, 14Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc Mahavir Nagar, Ekta Complex, Mumbai Terrence Tower, Kamla 400051. Vihar Sports Kandivali (W), Mumbai – 400067 Pan/Gir No. : Aaqps6075B Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Bharat Kumar.Ar Respondent By : Shri Rp Veena.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 26.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar.ARFor Respondent: Shri RP Veena.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

Assessing Officer (A.O) has received information from Sales Tax Department and DGIT(Inv), Mumbai that the assessee has obtained the bogus purchase bills from certain dealers who are providing the bogus accommodation entries as per the information in the Website of Sales Tax Department and the assessee being ... beneficiary of obtaining the bogus purchase bills. The AO find that the assessee has obtained the bogus bills from three parties aggregating to Rs.46,62,238/- and therefore has reason to believe that the income has escaped Samrat Bhupendra Sheth, Mumbai. assessment and issued notice

DCIT 14(1) (10, Mumbai vs. M/S. K. Rasiklal Exim Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2327/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhdcit, Circle – 14(1)(1) Vs. M/S. K Rasiklal Exim Room No. 432, 4Th Floor Pvt Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 339/41, 2Nd Floor, Mk Road, Rawal Chambers, Mumbai- 400020. Masjid Bunder, Mumbai-400003. Pan/Gir No. : Aabck4895P Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Tejinder Pal Singh.Dr Date Of Hearing 29.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Tejinder Pal Singh.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

appeal: 1. Whether Ld.CIT(A) is right in law and facts in restricting the addition of Rs. 1,01,08,283/-on account of bogus purchases to only 2% of the such bogus M/s K. Rasiklal Exim Pvt Ltd, Mumbai. purchase, without giving any findings ... purchase which were made through bogus parties". 2. Whether Ld.CIT(A) is right in law and facts in restricting the addition on account of bogus purchases to only 2% of the bogus purchase, without appreciating the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case

M/S Sunmoon Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 19 (3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7747/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Sunmoonenterprises Vs. Acit – 19(3) Fc-8160A, Fc-8161, Fc- Matru Mandir Bldg 8162, Brarat Diamond Mumbai- 400007 Bourse, Bkc, Bandra E Mumbai - 400051. Pan/Gir No. : Aacfs2654D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ketan Vajani.Ar Respondent By : Shri R.P. Veena.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29.08.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Vajani.ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Veena.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

statements of third party (which too were retracted, thus having no evidential value) and purely on conjectures and surmises made additions @ 8% of alleged bogus purchases made from a supplier and thus confirming Addition to the tune of Rs.7,68,485/- to the income calculated @ 8% of Value of Purchases ... Moon Enterprises, Mumbai. case of Shri Bhanwarlal Jain Group. The A.O. received the information from the DGIT(Inv), Mumbai that the assessee has obtained bogus purchases bills from M/s Little Diam of Rs.96,06,064. Therefore the Assessing Officer (AO) has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment

ITO 27 (1)(4), Mumbai vs. Smt Indira Ramchandra Sharma, Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the Revenue for Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2011-12 are dismissed

ITA 1433/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1431/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2009-10) आअसं. 1432/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2010-11) आअसं. 1433/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2011-12) Income Tax Officer – 27(1)(4), Room No.409, 4Th Floor, Tower No.6, Vashi Rly. Station Complex, Navi Mumbai – 400 0703 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Smt. Indira Ramchandra Sharma C-6, Bangana Chs Ltd. Pp. U.S. Vitamins Ltd., Deonar, Mumbai – 400 088 Pan: Aaops-8031-R ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Beena Santosh ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Ryan Saldanha सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/08/2022

For Appellant: Ms. Beena SantoshFor Respondent: Shri Ryan Saldanha
Section 143(3)

goods. The assessment for Assessment Year 2009-10 in the case of assessee was reopened on the ground that assessee has indulged in obtaining bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs.27,00,395/- from hawala operators. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer held that since the assessee ... disallowed. The Assessing Officer after giving the benefit of amount added back in the subsequent assessment year made addition of the balance bogus purchases i.e. Rs.9,98,100/- from M/s. Metalex Metal Industries. Aggrieved against the assessment order dated. 24.02.2016 passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income

ITO-27(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Smt. Indira Ramchandra Sharma, Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the Revenue for Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2011-12 are dismissed

ITA 1432/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1431/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2009-10) आअसं. 1432/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2010-11) आअसं. 1433/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2011-12) Income Tax Officer – 27(1)(4), Room No.409, 4Th Floor, Tower No.6, Vashi Rly. Station Complex, Navi Mumbai – 400 0703 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Smt. Indira Ramchandra Sharma C-6, Bangana Chs Ltd. Pp. U.S. Vitamins Ltd., Deonar, Mumbai – 400 088 Pan: Aaops-8031-R ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Beena Santosh ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Ryan Saldanha सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/08/2022

For Appellant: Ms. Beena SantoshFor Respondent: Shri Ryan Saldanha
Section 143(3)

goods. The assessment for Assessment Year 2009-10 in the case of assessee was reopened on the ground that assessee has indulged in obtaining bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs.27,00,395/- from hawala operators. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer held that since the assessee ... disallowed. The Assessing Officer after giving the benefit of amount added back in the subsequent assessment year made addition of the balance bogus purchases i.e. Rs.9,98,100/- from M/s. Metalex Metal Industries. Aggrieved against the assessment order dated. 24.02.2016 passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income

ITO-27(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Smt. Indira Ramchandra Sharma, Mumbai

In the result, appeals by the Revenue for Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2011-12 are dismissed

ITA 1431/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1431/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2009-10) आअसं. 1432/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2010-11) आअसं. 1433/मुं/2019 ("न.व 2011-12) Income Tax Officer – 27(1)(4), Room No.409, 4Th Floor, Tower No.6, Vashi Rly. Station Complex, Navi Mumbai – 400 0703 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Smt. Indira Ramchandra Sharma C-6, Bangana Chs Ltd. Pp. U.S. Vitamins Ltd., Deonar, Mumbai – 400 088 Pan: Aaops-8031-R ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Beena Santosh ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Ryan Saldanha सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/08/2022

For Appellant: Ms. Beena SantoshFor Respondent: Shri Ryan Saldanha
Section 143(3)

goods. The assessment for Assessment Year 2009-10 in the case of assessee was reopened on the ground that assessee has indulged in obtaining bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs.27,00,395/- from hawala operators. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer held that since the assessee ... disallowed. The Assessing Officer after giving the benefit of amount added back in the subsequent assessment year made addition of the balance bogus purchases i.e. Rs.9,98,100/- from M/s. Metalex Metal Industries. Aggrieved against the assessment order dated. 24.02.2016 passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income

Nilesh M. Agarwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT - CC-4(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal for AY 2011-12, 2013-14 and 2014-15 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5110/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5110/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5111/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5112/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5113/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5114/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5115/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5116/Mum/2018 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Tejveer Singh/ ShriFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Ld. DR
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

seen that the Learned AO has directly taken the purchase amount from the profit and loss statement and concluded the same as bogus purchases. Therefore, as submitted by Ld. Counsel, the additions made by the Learned AO are not justified in law. iv) Reliance in this regard was placed ... Refer Annexure - 6 of Paper book - II) Considering the documentary evidences, we request your Honour to delete the addition made on account of bogus purchases. 2. Disallowance of Futures The Appellant hereby submits the copy of and Options Loss (F&O) of Profit & Loss Account and ledger in the appellant

M/S. Sarswati Extrusion Pvt.Ltd, Aurangabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Aurangabad

ITA 1716/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1546/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Saraswati Extrusions Ward-2(4), Aurangabad. Vs Pvt. Ltd., . H-20, Midc, Waluj, Aurangabad – 431136. Pan: Aajcs 6024 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1716/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S.Saraswati Extrusions Pvt. The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs Ward-2(4), Aurangabad. H-20, Midc, Waluj, . Aurangabad – 431136. Pan: Aajcs 6024 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S & Assessee’S Cross Appeals Ita No.1546 & 1716/Pun/2017 For A.Y. 2011-12 Arising Against The Ld.Cit(A)- 2, Aurangabad’S Order Dated 12.04.2017 Passed In Appeal No.Abd/Cit(A)-2/E-File/57/2016-17, In Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)

outset that both these Revenue’s and assessee’s cross appeals raise a common issue of genuineness of the latter’s alleged bogus purchases disallowance of Rs.4,05,92,816/- made in the course of assessment /re-assessment dated 17.03.2016 and restricted to the extent ... follows: “6. Ground Nos.1 & 2 pertain to the addition of Rs.4,05,92,816/- on account of purchases made from Hawala entities treated as bogus purchases meant to suppress the profits in assessment. In appellate proceedings, the assessee stated that the assessee had submitted all possible details and produced

Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Aurangabad vs. M/S. Saraswati Extrusions Pvt.Ltd, Aurangabad

ITA 1546/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1546/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Saraswati Extrusions Ward-2(4), Aurangabad. Vs Pvt. Ltd., . H-20, Midc, Waluj, Aurangabad – 431136. Pan: Aajcs 6024 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1716/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S.Saraswati Extrusions Pvt. The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs Ward-2(4), Aurangabad. H-20, Midc, Waluj, . Aurangabad – 431136. Pan: Aajcs 6024 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S & Assessee’S Cross Appeals Ita No.1546 & 1716/Pun/2017 For A.Y. 2011-12 Arising Against The Ld.Cit(A)- 2, Aurangabad’S Order Dated 12.04.2017 Passed In Appeal No.Abd/Cit(A)-2/E-File/57/2016-17, In Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

Section 143(3)

outset that both these Revenue’s and assessee’s cross appeals raise a common issue of genuineness of the latter’s alleged bogus purchases disallowance of Rs.4,05,92,816/- made in the course of assessment /re-assessment dated 17.03.2016 and restricted to the extent ... follows: “6. Ground Nos.1 & 2 pertain to the addition of Rs.4,05,92,816/- on account of purchases made from Hawala entities treated as bogus purchases meant to suppress the profits in assessment. In appellate proceedings, the assessee stated that the assessee had submitted all possible details and produced

ACIT Cir 20(1), Mumbai vs. Shailesh Navinchandra Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed in limini

ITA 2383/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2383/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit Cir-20(1), Shailesh R. No. 615, 6Th Floor, Navinchandra Shah, बिधम/ Piramal Chambers, Parel, 6-321, Ravikiran, 1St Mumbai-400 012 Floor, Deodhar Road, Vs. Matunga Cr Mumbai-400019 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aayps6030Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Neeta Jeph, Ld. Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Viraj Mehta,Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 29.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 29.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Impugned Order Dated 29.10.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) For Ay 2011-12. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:-

For Appellant: Ms. Neeta Jeph, Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Viraj Mehta,Ld. AR
Section 143(3)

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition on account of bogus purchases to 25% of total bogus purchase ignoring the fact that the Sales Tax Department has proved beyond doubt that the parties declared as hawala traders ... exception. Thus the said Clause will have no impact on this issue. 5. In any case, Ld. CIT(A) while applying GP rate on bogus purchase had followed various ITAT decision which now is full covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT

ITO 27(2) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Padma Industries, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2364/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shri Amit Shukla, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2364/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2365/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito-27(2)91), M/S Padma Industries A/18, Muni Suvrat R. No. 633, 4Th Floor, बनाम/ Darshan, Navroji Lane, Tower No. 6, Vashi (Cama Lane), Railway Station Vs. Ghatkopar(W), Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 086 Mumbai-400 703 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaifp9236D (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Neeta Jeph, Ld. Dr None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 29.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 29.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 17.10.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi For The Quantum Appeal Of 2

For Appellant: Ms. Neeta Jeph, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)

recorded on deletion of addition of Rs. 7,62,123/- as against addition of Rs. 8,70,998/- made by AO on account of bogus purchases for AY 2010-11 and deletion of addition of Rs. 36,73,687/- as against addition of Rs. 41,98,499/- on account ... bogus purchases for AY 2011-12. 3. Ld. CIT(A) has sustained the addition only on account of gross profit @ 12.5% of the bogus purchases. 4. The facts in brief are that AO on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing that assessee has accommodation bill for purchase through

M/S. Dharam Impex, Surat vs. The Dy. CIT, Central Circle-4, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2008-09 in ITA No

ITA 1580/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.288 To 293/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) M/S Kangan Jewels Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O 106, Saryu Chambers, Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Jadakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat- Surat 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadck 2552 R अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.306 To 311/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09 To 2013-14) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1579/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) M/S Maniprabha Impex Pvt.Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O 106, Saryu Chambers, Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Jadakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat- Surat 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecm 6219 L अपीलाथ" /Appellant) ""यथ" /Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.312 To 317/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09 To 2013-14) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1580/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) M/S Dharam Impex Deputy Commissioner Of C/O 106, Saryu Chambers, Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Jadakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat- Surat 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaffd 2692 C अपीलाथ" /Appellant) ""यथ" /Respondent)

Section 144Section 153C

ground of appeal, disputing the addition contests the working of profit and allowance of 25% for expenses. I find that the rates of providing bogus purchases, bogus loans and imports as admitted during the course of statements by Bhanwarlal Jain where also searches were undertaken and similar modus operandi

M/S. Maniprabha Impex Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Dy. CIT, Central Circle-4, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2008-09 in ITA No

ITA 1579/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.288 To 293/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2014-15) (Physical Court Hearing) M/S Kangan Jewels Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O 106, Saryu Chambers, Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Jadakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat- Surat 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadck 2552 R अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.306 To 311/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09 To 2013-14) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1579/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) M/S Maniprabha Impex Pvt.Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O 106, Saryu Chambers, Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Jadakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat- Surat 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaecm 6219 L अपीलाथ" /Appellant) ""यथ" /Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.312 To 317/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2008-09 To 2013-14) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1580/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) M/S Dharam Impex Deputy Commissioner Of C/O 106, Saryu Chambers, Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Jadakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat- Surat 395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaffd 2692 C अपीलाथ" /Appellant) ""यथ" /Respondent)

Section 144Section 153C

ground of appeal, disputing the addition contests the working of profit and allowance of 25% for expenses. I find that the rates of providing bogus purchases, bogus loans and imports as admitted during the course of statements by Bhanwarlal Jain where also searches were undertaken and similar modus operandi