“bogus purchases”

ITO - 32(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Harnish D. Chitalia, Mumbai

In the result Revenue's appeal is dismissed

case leading to the levy of penalty are that the assessing officer in this case made disallowance of 12.5% on account of bogus purchases. Assessee has supplied the purchase vouchers and the payment were shown to have been made by banking channel. However drawing adverse inference for the nonproduction ... suppliers the assessing officer disallowed 12.5% of the bogus purchases. However the assessing officer did not doubt the sales. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was also levied. Ld CIT(A) deleted the penalty holding as under :- “3.3 I have gone through the assessment order, penalty order passed

It Ward -32(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Hitesh Babulal Kanti, Mumbai

In the result Revenue's appeal is dismissed

case leading to the levy of penalty are that the assessing officer in this case made disallowance of 12.5% on account of bogus purchases. Assessee has supplied the purchase vouchers and the payment were shown to have been made by banking channel. However drawing adverse inference for the non-production ... suppliers the assessing officer disallowed 12.5% of the bogus purchases. However the assessing officer did not doubt the sales. Ld CIT(A) reduced it to 67%. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was also levied. Learned CIT(A) deleted the penalty holding as under : 3.3 I have

ITO Ward -32(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Haresh Ramanbhai Barot, Mumbai

In the result revenue’s appeal is dismissed

case leading to the levy of penalty are that the assessing officer in this case made disallowance of 12.5% on account of bogus purchases. Assessee has supplied the purchase vouchers and the payment were shown to have been made by banking channel. However drawing adverse inference for the non-production ... suppliers the assessing officer disallowed 12.5% of the bogus purchases. However the assessing officer did not doubt the sales. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was also levied. Ld CIT(A) deleted the penalty holding as under :- “3.3 I have gone through the assessment order, penalty order

ITO - 9(2)(3), Mumbai vs. M\S Creative Awards & Rewards P Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

tune of Rs. 1,78,640/- without appreciating the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the quantum addition on account of bogus purchases? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law , the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in not appreciating ... aforesaid circular. 8. Per contra, it was submitted by the ld. Departmental Representative (for short „D.R‟) that as the addition of the alleged bogus purchases was based on the incriminating information that was received from the Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra, an external agency, thus, the present appeal filed

DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Siroya Developers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: The Sales Tax Department That They Had Not Supplied Any Material For Which The Assessee Has Claimed Expenses?

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made on account of bogus purchases made from M/s. R. G. Corporation who had been declared bogus entity by the Sales Tax Department and when the assessee could not establish the genuineness ... assessee and the decision of Hon'ble High Court and upheld sustaining the addition of entire income on account of bogus purchases? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition

ITO Ward -32(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Hina Arvind Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

that the AO has made an addition of Rs.45,76,587/- being 5% on total purchases on estimated basis in order to bring the bogus purchases to tax on the basis of information received from the third party i.e. State Sales Tax Department and DDIT(Inv) V(I), Mumbai which ... income. We find from the record that the additions as made by the AO was a pure estimate and nothing concrete as to bogus purchases were brought on records by the AO by making any further enquiries or investigation. In our view the penalty cannot be imposed where the additions

Rentworks India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 14 (3)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.5,14,26,070/-/- as made by the AO equal to 100% of the bogus purchases. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 15.10.2010 declaring total income of Rs.79,01,74,987/- which ... after receipt of information from the Sales Tax Deptt , Govt of Maharashtra that Shri Shirish Shah has advanced accommodation entries by way of bogus purchase entries to the extent of Rs.5,14,26,070/- to the assesse during the year. Further during a search action

Aadit Metal Trade Pvt.Ltd., Mumbai vs. PCIT(Central)-3, Mumbai

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

furnish any cogent evidence in respect of the claim. The assessment was completed after making addition of Rs. 1.20,22,022/- on account of bogus purchases being 1% of the total bogus purchases of Rs. 120,22,02,185/-. Since all the purchases made by the assessee was bogus ... actually purchases by the assessee then as per section 37(1) of the IT Act 1961, all the expenditure pertaining to the bogus purchases should have been disallowed. During the course of search in the case of Indiabulls group on 13.04.2016, it was found that the entities belonging to Indiabulls

Asst CIT 32(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Mm Construction, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax- M/S M.M. Construction, A-403, 32(2), Vs. 404, Jeevan Prabha, 720, 7Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, C- Chandavarkar Road, Borivali 41 To C-43, G Block Bkc, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400092. East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aagfm 5456 L Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad, Dr Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/10/2021

return was processed u/s 143(1) Of the Act. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has obtained bills of bogus purchases from the following parties : S. No. TIN No. Name of Party Amount (₹) 1. 27910623885V Deonar Trading Pvt. Ltd. 17,85,700/- 2. 27050634058V Linux Sales Agency ... Total 93,55,288/- 4. After considering the submissions of the assessee and the Assessing Officer considered the above purchases as bogus purchases and made 100% of the above purchases as income of the assessee by disallowing the entire purchases. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before

ITO 32(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Abhay Automotive Company, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 780/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-32(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Abhay Automotive Room No.703, 7Th Floor, Company Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra B/402, Sumer Nagar Building Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), No.3, Sv Road, Borivali East, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400092. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aajfa3745K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Brajendra Kumar (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Kartik Katmutia (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/08/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.11.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-44, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2009-10 In Which The Penalty Levied By Ao Has Been Ordered To Be Deleted. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Grounds Of Appeal, On The & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Penalty Levied By The Ao U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, Of Rs. 1,81,613/- Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessing Officer Has

levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, 1961 of Rs.1,81,613/- without appreciating the facts that the assessee claimed bogus purchases in its Return of Income thereby making himself liable for Penalty u/s.271(IXc) of the I.T. Act. 1961. 4. " On the facts ... r.w.s 147 of the I. T. Act, 1961 was completed by raising the addition of Rs.43,87,622/- on account of bogus purchase u/s 69C of the Act. The penalty proceeding was initiated. After the reply of the assessee, the AO levied the penalty to the tune of Rs.1

Asst CIT 22(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Amolraj Printers, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.634/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Acit-22(1) बिधम/ M/S. Amolraj Printers, 352, Room No.322, 3Rd Floor, A To Z Industrial Estate, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mumbai-400012. Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400013. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafa1576F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Brajendra Kumar (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 10/08/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.11.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -33 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Restricting Addition Made By The A.O Amounting Rs.3,31,282/- I.E. 100% Of Total Purchase To 25%, Ignoring The Fact That The Action Of The Assessing Officer Was Based On Credible Information Received From The Maharashtra Sales Tax Department & That The Assessee During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, Failed To Prove The Genuineness Of The Purchase Transactions. A.Y.2010-11 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Has Erred In Estimating Addition On Account Of Bogus Purchase To 25% Of Such Purchases As Against The Estimation By The Ao Of 100% Of Bogus Purchases Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Had Failed To Establish The Genuineness Of The Alleged Parties From Whom Purchases Is Claimed To Have Been Made During The Year.

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in estimating addition on account of bogus purchase to 25% of such purchases as against the estimation by the AO of 100% of bogus purchases without appreciating the fact that the assessee ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in estimating addition on account of bogus purchase to 25% of such purchases as against the estimation by the AO of 100% of bogus purchases without appreciating the fact that the assessee could

ITO 26(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Raghunath Baburao Mohite, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1222/Mum/2020 Aayakr Apila Sam Aayakr Apila Sam (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) & Aayakr Apila Sam Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 1223/Mum/2020 Aayakr Apila Sam Aayakr Apila Sam (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2011-12)

only common issue in these two appeals of revenue is as regards, the order of Ld.CIT(A) restricting the profit rate on bogus purchases @ 12.5% as against addition made by AO @ 100%. For this revenue has raised identical in grounds and facts and circumstances are also identical in both ... from the following party. S.N TIN Name of the Amount(Rs.) Party 1 27750595164V Deep 2,72,188 Enterprises 4. The AO disallowed the bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 2,72,188/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). 5. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee

Mr Mitesh Chimnlal Savla, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 21 (2)(3), Mumbai

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 6822/Mum/2019 Aayakr Apila Sam Aayakr Apila Sam (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) Shri Mitesh Chimanlal Savla The Income Tax Officer,Ward- 15/16, Divya Mahal, 2Nd Floor 21(2)(3) Room No.105, Piramal Gyan Mandir Road Vs. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel Dadar(W) Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 028 (Apilaaqai Apilaaqai Apilaaqai- / Appellant) Apilaaqai (P`%Yaq P`%Yaq P`%Yaqaaiaaiaaiaai- / Respondent) P`%Yaq .. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Amwps2822A अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Satyaprakash Singh, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Vaibhav Jain, Dr 27.10.2021 सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2021 Aadosa Aadosa / O R D E R Aadosa Aadosa

only issue in this appeal of assessee, as regards to the order of Ld.CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in disallowing the bogus purchases by applying profit rate of 25% at Rs. 2 Mr. Mitesh Chimanlal Savla AY 10-11 27,26,020/-. For this, assessee has raised ... erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 27,26,020/- in respect of so-called bogus purchases.” 3. I have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. The brief facts are that the AO received information from the DGIT (Investigation), Mumbai that the assessee

ITO-33(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Priyesh Sashikant Nanavati, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

against the order of Ld. CIT(A) wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the part addition to the extent of 87.5% of the bogus purchases thereby sustaining addition to the extent of 12.5% of the bogus purchases. 2 Mr. Priyesh Sashikant Nanavati 3. The facts in brief are that ... assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that only the profit element embedded in the said bogus purchases could be brought to tax and while allowing the appeal of the assessee partly the Ld. CIT(A) followed the decision

Asst CIT Cir. 6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S All Wave A V Systems Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice-Assessment Year : 2009-10 Asst.Cit Cir 6(1)(1), M/S. All Wave A V Systems Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. 420/A, Shah & Bahar Industrial Vs Estate, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. Pan : Aadca3704H (Appellant) (Respondent)

only issue in this appeal of the Revenue is as regard to the order of CIT(A) in restricting the profit rate of bogus purchases @12.5% as against 100% disallowed by the Assessing Officer. For this the Revenue has raised the following two grounds:- 2 M/s. All Wave ... facts and in the circumstances of case and in law, the ld. CITA) erred in restricting the disallowance on account of bogus purchases @12.5% as against 100% made by the AO since there was no compliance from the two parties from whom the assessee company has made purchases amounting

ITO - 9(2)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Contech Machines P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice-Assessment Year : 2010-11 Ito 9(2)(3), M/S. Contech Machines P Ltd., Mumbai. 22/C, Vaibhav Industrial Estate, Vs Saki Vihar Road, Powai, Mumbai 400 072. Pan Awups3619P (Appellant) (Respondent)

only issue in this appeal of the Revenue is against the order of the CIT(A) restricting the profit @ 12.5% of the bogus purchases as against the addition made by Assessing Officer @100%. For this Revenue has raised following two grounds: 2 M/s. Contech Machines P. Ltd “1. Whether ... circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in restricting the suppressed profit to the extent of 12.5% of bogus purchases, when the assessee could not produce any parties or evidence that the said goods were purchased and the onus of providing genuineness of purchases was not discharged

Tarachand Mehta HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice-

Assessing Officer on the following two grounds: i) re-opening of assessment u/s. 147 of the Act; ii) confirming the addition of alleged bogus purchases in making addition in the hands of the assessee HUF having PAN AAAHT035P. 3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee took

M/S Atlanta Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Ircle-9 (1)(2), Mumbai

Appeals stands partly allowed whereas the appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7424/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7425/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S Atlanta Limited Dcit Circle – 9(1)(2), बिाम/ 301, Shree Ambashanti Chambers Aaykar Bhavan, Opp. Hotel Leela, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaaca-8865-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7630/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) 4. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7631/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) 5. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7632/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Dcit Circle – 9(1)(2), M/S Atlanta Limited R. No. 210, 2Nd Floor बिाम/ 301, Shree Ambashanti Chambers Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Opp. Hotel Leela, Andheri (East), Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 059 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aaaca-8865-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Brajendra Kumar– Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/09/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 26/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

grievance of the revenue in all these years is common i.e. estimated additions on account of alleged bogus purchases made by assessee from Sales Tax Hawala dealers. During assessment proceedings of AY 2011-12, it transpired that the assessee made purchases of Rs.7.26 Lacs from two entities and was required

Clonto Lobo, Mumbai vs. ITO Range 30 (1)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Clonto Lobo, Income Tax Officer, Range 21, Shreepal Services Industrial Vs. 30(1)(2), Estate, Pavanbaug, Chincoli, Malad, R. No. 505, C-13, 5Th Floor, West, Mumbai-400064. Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bhandra East, Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aabpl 6175 E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sandesh Desai, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/10/2021

dealers had admitted to have issued details/invoices to various parties without actual delivery of goods. Based on the information, the assessee has received alleged bogus purchases of ₹5,30,914/- from three dealers. Accordingly, the assessment was completed by making addition of ₹95,820/- being 18.86% of the impugned purchases ... appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) sustained and also enhanced the addition to the extent of 100% of the alleged bogus purchases. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings by issue of notices u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) dated 22.08.2019. After considering the submissions