← 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

Jurisdictional ITO -31(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Gopalbhai Shamjibhai Kalsaria, Mumbai

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

ITA 439/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.439/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-31(1)(1) बिधम/ Gopalbhai Shamjibhai Kalsaria Room No.603, 6Th Floor, 122/10, Jawahar Nagar, Road Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra No.10 Goregaon (W), Mumbai- Kurla Complex, „G‟ Block, 400062. Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagpk6469B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Prasoon Kabra Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/11/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 21.01.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -42 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Estimating The Profit To 12.5% Of Bogus Purchases Against 100% Addition Made By The Ao. A.Y.2009-10 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred, In Not Considering That The Addition Was Made On The Basis Of Information Received From Dgit(Inv.) & Sales Tax Department Maharashtra With Regard To Bogus Purchases Made By The Assessee From Dealers Without Supply Of Actual Goods. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred, In Not Considering That The Hawala Operators Have Admitted On Oath Before The Sales Tax Authorities That They Have Not Sold Any Material To Anybody. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred, In Not Considering That The Assessee Could Not Prove The Genuineness & Creditworthiness Of Purchase Transactions During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in estimating the profit to 12.5% of bogus purchases against 100% addition made by the AO. A.Y.2009-10 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... considering that the addition was made on the basis of information received from DGIT(Inv.) and Sales Tax Department Maharashtra with regard to bogus purchases made by the assessee from dealers without supply of actual goods. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

M/S. Morakhia Copper & Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 161/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 161/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 M/S. Morakhia Copper & Alloys Pvt. A.C.I.T., Ltd., Vs. Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), 12, 2Nd Floor, B Wing, Ahmedabad. Mardia Plaza, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacm3439J

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

facts of the case in confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271(l)(c) of the Act on the amount of alleged bogus purchase of Rs. 15,29,625/-. 3. In any case, the impugned penalty order is barred by limitation and thus without jurisdiction and illegal. 4. In any case ... section 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27th March 2014, inter-alia, made addition of ₹ 3,06,32,999/- on account of bogus purchases shown by the assessee. The assessee during the assessment proceedings initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on account

M/S Boss Infosolutions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 12(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 885/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 69C

assessee is engaged in the business of wholesale and retail trade of computers and its peripheral/parts. Upon information received from Sales tax department regarding bogus purchases, the AO reopened and issued notice to the assessee. The assessee responded as under;- In response to the same the assessee's representative vide ... that they have not supplied the goods and only bills were issued. They have further confirmed that they have received the cheques against such bogus purchase bills. Subsequent to the action by the Sales Tax Department these parties have closed their bank account and left the premises in which bills

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

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1753/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

this case is that Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirmed the addition made by the AO of Rs. 7,40,365/- on account of alleged bogus purchase. 4. In this case, assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturer of kitchen appliances. On the basis of receipt of information from sales ... jurisdictional High Court in the case of Nikunj Eximp Enterprises( in Writ Petition No.2860, order dated 18.06.2014) has deleted 100% disallowance on account of bogus purchases. However, the facts of the present case are different as assessee is not a trader. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Dy CIT - 26(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Vijay Engg. Works., Mumbai

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

ITA 469/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.469/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dcit-26(1) बिधम/ M/S. Vijay Engineering Room No.623, 6Th Floor, Works, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Unit No.11, Kamaldeep Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Industrial Estate Sonawala Mumbai-400051. Cross Road No.2, Goregaon East, Mumbai-400063. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafv1227E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Prasoon Kabra Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/11/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 22.01.2020 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -42 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting Addition Of Rs.1,09,659/- For Ay 2007-08 On Account Of Bogus Purchases?" A.Y.2009-10 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Considering That The Addition Was Made On The Basis Of Information Received From Dgit(Lnv.) & Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra With Regard To Bogus Purchase Made By The Assessee From Dealers Without Supply Of Actual Goods."

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting addition of Rs.1,09,659/- for AY 2007-08 on account of bogus purchases?" A.Y.2009-10 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering that ... addition was made on the basis of information received from DGIT(lnv.) and Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra with regard to bogus purchase made by the assessee from dealers without supply of actual goods." "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

ITO, Ward-4(1), Thane vs. Shri Akshay Anil Sawant, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 420/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 420 To 422/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Ito Ward-4(1), Thane बिधम/ Shri Akshay Anil Sawant Room No.03, A- Wing 6Th Prop M/S. Akshay Plastics, 12, Vs. Floor, Ashar It Park, Wagle Sarang Industrial Estate, Industrial Estate, Thane(W)- Navghar Road, Vasai (E)- 400604. 401210. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bhgps4851P (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Prasoon Kabra (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Vinay Bhoir (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/11/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/12/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -03, Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2009- 10 To 2011-12. Ita. No.420/Mum/2021 2. The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 25.02.2020 Passed By The Cit(A)-03, Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2009-10. 3. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Bhoir (AR)For Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 148

Thane erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,63,304/- out of the total addition of Rs.4,84,406/- made on account of bogus purchases, despite holding that the purchases were not genuine and the assessee failed to prove genuineness of the transactions. 2. On the facts ... necessary.” 4. The brief facts of the case are that the AO received information from the higher authorities that the assessee has received the bogus purchases bills from the entry providers. On the basis of said information, the AO has reason to believe that the income of the assessee

Nagardas Kanji Shah, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT - 20, Mumbai

Accordingly, we are inclined to quash the impugned orders passed by learned Principal Commissioner under section 263 of the Act. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 359/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 359/मुं/2021 ("न. व .2010-11) M/S. Nagardas Kanji Shah, 176, Magazine Street, Darukhana, Mumbai 400 010. Pan: Aaafn-1109-P ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-20, Room No.418, 4Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, Lal Baug, Parel Mumbai 400 012. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Jitendra Singh, Advocate ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Mahesh Akhade, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 29/11/2021 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 17/12/2021

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Akhade, CIT-DR
Section 263

invoked revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act merely on the ground that the Assessing Officer has made estimated addition of 12.5% on bogus purchases instead of 100% addition. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that on the basis of information received from Sales Tax Department, Government OF Maharashtra ... case of assessee for assessment year 2010-11 was reopened. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment by making addition in respect of alleged bogus purchases by estimating undisclosed profit margin of 12.5% on bogus purchases. The PCIT without appreciating the legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Bombay High

Dy CIT - 26(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Vinodkumar S. Deora, Mumbai

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

ITA 470/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2021AY 2010-11
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. N. Kabra
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

justified in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) without appreciating that the penalty was levied on quantum addition made on account of bogus purchases wherein the onus was on the assessee to establish the genuineness of such A.Y.2010-11 purchases by production of such parties before the assessing officer ... Assessing Officer has levied penalty only after verifying the fact that the assessee evaded the taxes on the quantum addition made on account of bogus purchase.” 3 “The appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing

Asstt. CIT - 32, Mumbai vs. Shri Dharmesh P. Bhatt, Mumbai

ITA 1650/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhle
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

settled position of law that penalty cannot be levied when an adhoc estimation is made. In the instant case profit element on the alleged bogus purchases was estimated on adhoc basis at 12.5% by Assessing Officer and Ld.CIT(A) for both the Assessment Years. 6. On identical situations the Coordinate

Asstt. CIT-32(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Dharmesh P. Bhatt, Mumbai

ITA 1649/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhle
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

settled position of law that penalty cannot be levied when an adhoc estimation is made. In the instant case profit element on the alleged bogus purchases was estimated on adhoc basis at 12.5% by Assessing Officer and Ld.CIT(A) for both the Assessment Years. 6. On identical situations the Coordinate

ACIT Cir. 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Excelhone Manufacturing Pvt Ltd., Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1350/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Acit – Circle – 15(1)(1) V. M/S. Excelhone Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd., 304, Building No. 6 Room No. 470, 4Th Floor Millennium Business Park Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Koparkhairne, Navi Mumbai - 400709 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabce6882C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By Shri Vijay Kumar Menon

For Appellant: None
Section 143(1)Section 147

appellant company was asked to submit the details of purported purchases made and to show cause why the same should not be disallowed as bogus purchases. The appellant filed reply stating that purchases were made from regular parties supported by proper bills and the accounting entries and the payments were ... only accommodation entries and the appellant was also in the list beneficiaries. Accordingly, the Ld. AO treated the amoutn of ₹.31,92,913/- as bogus purchases and added the same to the total income of the appellant. 2.4.2 Under similar circumstances the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat

Bhakti Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ACIT 30(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7148/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

Mumbai that persons who have floated various companies are engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries in the form of bogus unsecured loans, bogus purchases and bogus capital gains etc., and assessee is one of the beneficiaries operated and controlled by Shri Sanjay Choudhary Group. The assessee has obtained ... bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.3,31,05,202/-from six entities in the form of accommodation entries during the F.Y.2011-12 relevant to A.Y.2012-13. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. asked the assessee to ascertain the genuineness of the said purchases transactions towards which the assessee stated

M/S Polar Jewellery, Mumbai vs. ITO 23 (2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 6845/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble () & Shri Prashant Maharishi () M/S Polar Jewellery The Income Tax Officer-23(2)(5) Dw-5040, Bharat Diamond Bourse, Vs. Room No. 115, Matru Mandir, Bandra Kurla Complex, Tardeo Road, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 007

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Sarda, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

before us: “1. The CIT(Appeals) has erred in law by making an addition of Rs.41,09,338/- which constitutes 25% of the alleged bogus purchases of Rs.1,64,37,350/-. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter any grounds of appeal on or before

DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Magnum Estate Ltd., Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 248/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack15 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2012-13 Dcit, Corporate Circle 1(1), Dcit, Corporate Circle 1(1), Vs. M/S. Magnum Estate Ltd., 132 M/S. Magnum Estate Ltd., 132- Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. A, A, Sector Sector-A, Zone-A, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. No.Aabcm 8066 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) C.O.No.21/Ctk/2021 (In Ita No.248/Ctk/2017) .248/Ctk/2017) Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Magnum Estate Ltd., 132 M/S. Magnum Estate Ltd., 132- Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle 1(1), Dcit, Corporate Circle 1(1), A, A, Sector Sector-A, Zone-A, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Mancheswar Industrial Estate, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcm 8066 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee Assessee/Cross Objector By : Shri J.M.Patnaik J.M.Patnaik , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27 /10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/12 12/2021 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Of The & Cross Objection Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar Against The Order Of The Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar Against The Order Of The Cit(A),1, Bhubaneswar Dated 7.3.2017 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2012-13. P A G E 1 | 10 C.O.No.21/Ctk/2021 Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Section 133A

C.O.No.21/CTK/2021 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sri Mishra in reply to the above question stated that the difference Rs.5,33,00,000/- was bogus purchases from producers and offered the same taxation. Sri Mishra also stated that he would pay the tax of Rs.1.85 crores due on the same ... evidences were there in possession of the AO to make the above addition. There is also no whisper in the assessment order about any bogus purchases noticed by the AO. Especially when the AO has not been able to find out any bogus purchases, the addition made by him clearly

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Amr Global Industries Limited, Hyderabad

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 41/HYD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.M. Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Adv. Hema KatariaFor Respondent: Sri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

compliance to notices issued u/ s 133(6) to the said parties, it is clear that the purchases from the above parties are bogus purchase. This view is also supported by the following decisions: (i) N avkar Enterprises ... assessing 100% sales therefrom as correct suffers from mutually contradictory stands. We thus conclude that the CIT (A) has rightly restricted the impugned 25% bogus purchases disallowed to the extent of profit element only going by the corresponding book results which have nowhere been rejected till date. The Revenue

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Hyderabad vs. Karni Jewellers, Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 1987/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri S.S. Godara

Section 143(3)Section 148

crux of the issue in both the appeals is that that: “The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in sustaining the addition @ 5% on bogus purchases whereas the Ld. AO had made addition for the entire bogus purchases.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that both the assessee firms ... notice U/s. 148 of the Act for the relevant assessment year. In both the assessee’s cases it was observed that they had made bogus purchases from M/s. Sun Diam and Sparsh Exports (P) Ltd and M/s. Moulimani Impex (P) Ltd. The above facts were revealed during the investigation made

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1), Hyderabad vs. Sri Karni Jewellers, Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 1986/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri S.S. Godara

Section 143(3)Section 148

crux of the issue in both the appeals is that that: “The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in sustaining the addition @ 5% on bogus purchases whereas the Ld. AO had made addition for the entire bogus purchases.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that both the assessee firms ... notice U/s. 148 of the Act for the relevant assessment year. In both the assessee’s cases it was observed that they had made bogus purchases from M/s. Sun Diam and Sparsh Exports (P) Ltd and M/s. Moulimani Impex (P) Ltd. The above facts were revealed during the investigation made

M/S Gupta Enterprises, Howrah vs. I.T.O., Ward-47(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 262/KOL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.262/Kol/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Gupta Enterprises………………………..…………………….……Appellant 88/1, C Road, Belgahia, Howrah-711101. [Pan:Aagfg1219D] Vs. Ito, Ward-47(1), Kolkata…….........……..………........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Arya Das, A.R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 09, 2021 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 09, 2021 Hearing Through Video Conferencing Order Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.12.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Addition Made By Ld. A.O. At The Assessment Stage & Partly Upholding Such Addition To The Extent Of G.P. Ratio Made By Ld. Appellate Authority Are Absolutely Bad, Illegal & Therefore Deserve To Quashed. 2. That In Spite Of Showing All The Necessary Documents, The Ld. A.O. Made Disallowance Of The Entire Purchase On The Basis Of A Statement Taken From Third Party & The Appellate Authority'S Subsequent Action Of Disallowing The Purchase To The Extent Of G.P. Ratio Relying On The Same Statement Obtained From Third Party Are Absolutely Illegal & Baseless. 3. For That The Third Party'S Statement Relying On Which The Ld. A.O. & The Ld. Appellate Authority Made Disallowance Of Purchase Are Not Credible Enough As The Statement Made By The Same Third Party Against Other Assesses Were Ultimately Found To Be Untrue. 4. Other Grounds, If Any, Will Be Placed Before Your Honour On Or Before The Hearing Of The Appeal Petition.”

Section 143(3)

only grievance of the assessee in this appeal is regarding the action of Ld. CIT(A) in making addition @10.10% of one alleged bogus purchases. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the Assessing Officer had got some information that the assessee had procured some bogus bills ... showing less profits as the assessee might have procured these items from market at lesser rate. He accordingly restricted the addition in respect of bogus purchases to 10.10% i.e. equal to the GP rate shown by the assessee on sales. Aggrieved by the action

Chandrakant Raghunathrao Goje, Nanded vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Nanded

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

ITA 603/PUN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.603/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Chandrakant Raghunathrao Goje, Prop. New Marathwada Traders, Sant Kripa Market, Nanded. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Abjpg1263D बनाम / V/S. Ito, Ward-1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Nanded. Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07.12.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08.12.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Aurangabad (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 08.01.2018 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under :- The Appellant Is An Individual & Dealer In Machinery Goods. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Was Filed On 07.10.2009 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,45,270/- & There Was No Scrutiny Assessment Against The Said Return Of Income. Subsequently, Based On The Information Received From The Sales Tax Department That The Assessee Is Involved In The Bogus Purchases, A Notice U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

against the said return of income. Subsequently, based on the information received from the Sales Tax Department that the assessee is involved in the bogus purchases, a notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 2 1961 (‘the Act’) was issued on 06.03.2014. In response to the said notice ... Hence, the assessment was completed vide order dated 25.03.2015 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 without making any addition in respect of alleged bogus purchases. However, Assessing Officer made addition of ad-hoc disallowance on several expenses of Rs.3,45,267/-. Even on appeal before

ACIT, Circle- 19(2), New Delhi vs. Pc Jewellers Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 6650/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6649/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 6650/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Acit, Vs Pc Jewellers Ltd., Circle-19(2), C-54, Preet Vihar, New Delhi New Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcp5443Q Co No. 68/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Co No. 74/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Pc Jewellers Ltd., Vs Acit, C-54, Preet Vihar, Circle-19(2), New Delhi-110092 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcp5443Q Assessee By : Sh. S. S. Nagar, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 07.12.2021

For Appellant: Sh. S. S. Nagar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 2(24)(X)Section 40

case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,42,517/- ignoring the fact that commission paid on bogus purchases was also bogus. 3. On the facts and under the circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law by deleting the addition/disallowance ... facts of the case, the appeal of the revenue on this ground is being dismissed. In ITA Nos. 6649 & 6650/Del/2017 Disallowance on account of Bogus Purchase: 9. The assessee purchased the diamonds amounting to Rs.60,52,691/- through commission agent from various parties and paid the entire amount through proper