← 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

ACIT, CC- 19, New Delhi vs. Jay Ambay Aromatics, Jammu

Accordingly ground number 2 and 3 of the appeal of the learned AO are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5031/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh [CIT] – DR
Section 133(6)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 80I

filed by the revenue wherein the challenges by two the deletion of the addition of ₹ 424,341,000/– made by AO on account of bogus purchases on protective basis in the hands of the assessee and disallowance of ₹ 552,505/– on account of disallowance of the manufacturing expenses along with ... Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts in deleting the addition of Rs.79,57,01,894/- made by AO on account of bogus purchase. 4) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in accepting assessee contention that the Supplier of goods have submitted the reply/confirmation in respect to notice

ITO Ward 1 (1), Thane vs. Anantrai Manilal Sheth HUF, Mumbai

In the result revenues 's appeal is dismissed

ITA 73/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale (Jm) I.T.A. No’S. 73,74 & 75/Mum/2020 (Assessment Years 2009-10,2010-11 & 2011-12) Vs. Anantai Manilal Sheth, Ito Ward-1(1) Room No.21, B-Wing Huf 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park B-601, 6Th Floor, Smita Wagle Industrial Estate Chs Dr.Ambedkar Road, Thane(W)-400 604 Mulund(W) Mumbai-400 080

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

case leading to the levy of penalty are that the assessing officer in these cases made disallowance of 12.5% on account of bogus purchases. Assessee has supplied the purchase vouchers and the payment where shown to have been made by banking channel. However drawing adverse inference for the nonproduction ... appellant and material placed on record. During the course of assessment proceedings the AO had restricted the addition to the extent of 12.5% of bogus purchases, hence the addition to income has been sustained on estimation basis. 6. The Supreme Court has recently reiterated the law in case of Dilip

ITO 33 (1)91), Mumbai vs. Anil Pratapraj Sanghavi (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7389/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 33(1)(1) V. Anil Pratapraj Sanghvi (Huf) Room No. 945, 9Th Floor D/41, Plot No. 602 Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43 Supanth C.H.S. Ltd., G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Sector-6, Charkop Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Kandivali (W), Mumbai -400067 Pan: Aahha2159K (Appellant) (Respondent) None Assessee By : Department By Smita Verma

For Appellant: Department by Smita Verma
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

parties are returned unserved with a remark “unserved/unclaimed” by the postal authorities. Therefore, Assessing Officer treated 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases of ₹.36,46,163/- for the A.Y. 2011-12 as non-genuine. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) considering the evidences and various submissions of the assessee restricted

Asst. CIT 23 (2), Mumbai vs. Purshottamdas Agarwal, Mumbai

In the result revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 6777/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt () & Shri Shamim Yahya ()

Section 271(1)(c)

case leading to the levy of penalty are that the assessing officer in these cases made disallowance of 20% on account of bogus purchases. Assessee has supplied the purchase vouchers and the payment where shown to have been made by banking channel. However drawing adverse inference for the nonproduction ... suppliers the assessing officer disallowed 20% 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. 2 Purshottamdas Agarwal 3. Learned CIT(A) deleted the penalty holding that the amount involved was very

ITO 22 (1)(7), Mumbai vs. M/S Illumination Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6711/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 22(1)(7) V. M/S. Illumination Enterprises Room No. 120, 1St Floor 3, Pushpagandha Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Appasaheb Marathe Marg Mumbai – 400 012 Prabhadevi, Mumbai -400025 Pan: Aaafi6464Q (Appellant) (Respondent) None Assessee By : Department By Shri Sanjay J. Sethi

For Appellant: Department by Shri Sanjay J. Sethi
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 4

Left and Not known” and the assessee has not produced the parties before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, Assessing Officer treated 40% of the alleged bogus purchases of ₹.1,32,359/- for the A.Y. 2010-11 as non-genuine. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) considering the evidences and various submissions ... bills and bank statements etc. but failed to produce the parties. In view of above, the purchased from the 3 parties are held as bogus purchase. 6.1 However, considering the totality of facts, I am of the view that addition of 40% of purchase is not justified as the same

ITO 20 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aliakbar Haiderali Mukhi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6374/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2021AY 2011-12
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

several grounds, we find that only issue involved in this appeal of the revenue is with regard to addition made on account of bogus purchases. 3. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessee is an individual and proprietor of M/s. Metal

DCIT-10 (2) (2), Mumbai vs. Manik Machinery Manufacturers Private Limited, Mumbia

In the result this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6176/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice P.P. Bhatt () & Hon’Ble Shri Shamim Yahya ()

appeal by the Revenue wherein the assessee is aggrieved that the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining only 12.5% disallowance on account of bogus purchases, vide order dated 29.7.2019 pertaining to assessment year 2010-11. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee in this case is engaged ... types of spray guns. The Assessment in this case was reopened upon receipt of information from the sales tax Department that assessee has made bogus purchases. The assessee submitted the purchase vouchers and the payments were made through banking channel. However the suppliers were not produced before the assessing officer

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 635/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleasst. Cit – 22(1) V. M/S. Amolraj Printers Room No. 322, 3Rd Floor 352, A To Z Industrial Estate Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Mumbai – 400 012 Lower Parel, Mumbai -400013 Pan: Aaafa1576F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department By Smita Verma

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya
Section 143(1)Section 147

extent of 25% of the purchases, as the Ld.CIT(A) has followed the principle of consistency in restricting the disallowance to 25% of bogus purchases. Grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed. 8. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the virtual court

Dy CIT, CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Maneesh Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1713/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode)

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Sharma-Ld. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

Associated Enterprises as confirmed by Ld. CIT(A); (iv) Disclosure made by assessee during search to cover up discrepancies and on account of bogus purchases which was offered to tax in the return of income. 5.1 The assessee contested the impugned penalty with success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned

Manoj J Bokadia, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the term aforesaid

ITA 7168/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12 in the case of assessee was re-opened on the ground that the assessee has indulged in obtaining bogus purchase bills aggregating to Rs. 2,51,73,210/- from various (11) dealers, declared as hawala operators by the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra. During ... filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) not only upheld the findings of AO with regard to assessee’s involvement in obtaining bogus purchase bills but enhanced the disallowance to 100% of the alleged bogus purchases. Hence, the present appeal by the assessee. 3. Ms. Smita Verma representing

Dilip J Bokadia, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the term aforesaid

ITA 7167/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2021AY 2010-11
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11 in the case of assessee was re-opened on the ground that the assessee has indulged in obtaining bogus purchase bills aggregating to Rs. 2,99,86,362/- from various (8) dealers, declared as hawala operators by the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra. During ... filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) not only upheld the findings of AO with regard to assessee’s involvement in obtaining bogus purchase bills but enhanced the disallowance to 100% of the alleged bogus purchases. Hence, the present appeal by the assessee. 3. Ms. Smita Verma representing

Asst CIT 6 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. India Steel Works Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly. Appellant gets part relief. This ground is partly allowed

ITA 6995/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 6995/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) आमकय अऩीर िं./ Ita No. 7057/Mum/2019 (ननधाायण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) The Asst. Commissioner Of India Steel Works Ltd. 1101, 11 Th Floor, India Bull Income Tax 5Th Floor, Room No. 506, Aayakar फनाभ/ Finance Centre, S.B. Marg, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Elphistone (W), Vs. Mumbai-400 020 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा िं./Pan No. Aaaci1362A अऩीराथी की ओय े/ Appellant By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, Cit Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय े/ Respondent By : None ुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 12.07.2021 घोर्णा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 12.07.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय स िंह, उऩाध्मक्ष के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Appeals Of The Revenue Are Arising Out Of Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-12, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal Nos. Cit(A)-12/Dcit-6(3)(1)/367/16-17 & Cit(A)- 12/Dcit-6(3)(1)/B2-393/16-17 Vide Dated 17.07.2019 & 27.08.2019. The Assessments Were Framed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income

For Appellant: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, CIT DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)

only issue in these appeals of Revenue is as regards to the order of CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance of bogus purchases to the extent of profit rate of 12.5% rather than confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in assessing the whole of such purchases as income amounting ... with the contentions of the Ld. AR that there are many decisions wherein the ITAT, Mumbai, have upheld addition of a percentage of alleged bogus purchases under similar facts. Apart from the cases cited by the AR, in the following decisions also the ITAT, Mumbai has upheld estimation

Anmol Knit Wears Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 12 (1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6858/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

authorities. 6. We have heard Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. The sole disputed issue is in respect of addition of bogus purchases made by the A.O. and confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A). We find on perusal of the Assessment Order, the Assessing Officer has made addition ... respect of three parties where there is no compliance to the notices u/s. 133(6) of the Act. Whereas the assessee has made bogus purchases from the dealers and in turn it provides savings to the assessee in nonpayment of state taxes. We considered the facts and circumstances

ITO 33(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Juglesh Suresh Gupta, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6561/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 33(2)(1) V. Shri Juglesh Suresh Gupta Room No. 845, 8Th Floor 131, Jetwa Niwas Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc Gautam Chs Ld., Parle (W) Bandra(W), Mumbai - 400051 Mumbai -400057 Pan: Aripg0154A (Appellant) (Respondent) None Assessee By : Department By Shri Smita Verma

For Appellant: Department by Shri Smita Verma
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

produce the parties in support of its claim that purchases are genuinely made from the parties. Therefore, Assessing Officer treated 25% of the alleged bogus purchases of ₹.1,01,22,893/- for the A.Y. 2009-10 as non-genuine. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) considering the evidences and various submissions ... payment made to the seller parties, on account of non production of minor documents like octroi receipts, transportation bills the AO added 25% bogus purchases. It is seen that many Benches of IT AT and Hon'ble High Courts have held that when purchases are supported by sufficient documentary evidences

ITO Ward 6 (3)(3), Mumbai vs. Jinharsh Industrial Solutions Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result the ground No

ITA 6556/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 6(3)(3) V. M/S. Jinharsh Industrial Solutions Pvt. Ltd., {Earlier Known As Jiharsh Trading Pvt. Ltd.,} Room No. 524, 5Th Floor 2Nd Floor, Karnani Niwas, 34, Nagdevi Street, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400003 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacj1110B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By Smita Verma

For Appellant: None
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

being ITA Nos. 5063, 5064 & 5065/Mum/2017 in the case of Shri Sanjay H Shah has restricted the disallowance to 5% of the alleged bogus purchase, as under: "7. The Ld. AR of the Assessee in his submission claimed that VAT rate is only 4%. The rate ... Moreover, no incriminating material is brought on record except assumption and presumption of AO that assessee has availed accommodation bills. The addition of alleged bogus purchased are based on third party information. We are of the considered opinion that under Income Tax Act only real income can be taxed

ITO 6 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Acme Solvents Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result the ground No

ITA 6551/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 6(1)(1) V. M/S. Acme Solvents Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 503, 5Th Floor 6, 2Nd Floor, Samuel Street Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400003 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadca9369E (Appellant) (Respondent) None Assessee By : Department By Sanjay J. Sethi

For Appellant: Department by Sanjay J. Sethi
Section 143(1)Section 147

produce the parties in support of its claim that purchases are genuinely made from the parties. Therefore, Assessing Officer treated 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases of ₹.13,39,187/- for the A.Y. 2010-11 as non-genuine. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) considering the evidences and various submissions ... being ITA Nos. 5063, 5064 & 5065/Mum/2017 in the case of Shri Sanjay H Shah has restricted the disallowance to 5% of the alleged bogus purchase, as under: "7. The Ld. AR of the Assessee in his submission claimed that VAT rate is only 4%. The rate

ITO Ward 2 (3), Thane vs. Shri. Chandrakant P Jadhav, Mira Road

ITA 6487/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 6487/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2009-10) Ito-2(3), 6Th Floor, B-Wing, Room No.13, Ashar I.T. Park, Road No. 16Z, Nr. Ambika Nagar, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W)-400604. ...... अपीलाथ' /Appellant बनाम Vs. Shri Chandrakant P. Jadhav A/2, 2, Swami Samarth Chawi, Nirabhdev Mandir Road, Penkar Pada, Mira Road (E), Thane-401107 Pan: Ahbpj1818R ..... (ितवाद*/Respondent अपीलाथ' +ारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Smita Verma (ितवाद* +ारा/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क, ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2021 घोषणा क, ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/07/2021 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, J.M: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.07.2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10. आअसं. 6487/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2009-10) 2. The Assessment For Assessment Year (Ay) 2009-10 In The Case Of Assessee Was Re-Opened On The Ground That The Assessee Has Indulged In Obtaining Bogus Purchase Bills From Suspicious Dealers. The Assessing Officer (Ao) During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings Held That The Assessee Has Obtained Bogus Purchase Bills Amounting To Rs. 7,66,544/- From Three Dealers I.E. 1. Modern Traders Rs. 3,19,617/- 2. Dharmesh Trading Company Rs. 2,00,000/- 3. Kludee Sales Rs. 2,46,927/- Total Rs. 7,66,544/-

For Appellant: Ms. Smita VermaFor Respondent: None

Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10 in the case of assessee was re-opened on the ground that the assessee has indulged in obtaining bogus purchase bills from suspicious dealers. The Assessing Officer (AO) during the course of assessment proceedings held that the assessee has obtained bogus purchase bills amounting ... Since, the assessee failed to prove genuineness of aforesaid dealers and the purchases made from them, the AO made addition of entire bogus purchases. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs. 95,818/- by estimating profit margin

ITO 22 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mahendra Kumar Bafna, Mumbai

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6477/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 6477/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2009-10) आअसं. 6480/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2010-11)

For Appellant: Ms. Smita VermaFor Respondent: None
Section 133(6)

case of assessee for assessment year 2009-10 and 2010-11 were reopened on the ground that the assessee has indulged in obtaining bogus purchase bills from the dealers, declared as hawala operators by the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra. In assessment year 2009-10, the assessee allegedly obtained ... assessee allegedly obtained accommodation bills aggregating to Rs.8,78,328/- from suspicious dealers. The Assessing Officer made addition of entire alleged bogus purchases in the respective assessment years. Against the assessment orders, the assessee filed appeal for respective assessment years before the CIT(A). The First Appellate Authority after examining

ITO 22(3)(5), Mmbai vs. Universal Trading Co., Mumbai

ITA 6471/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 6471/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2010-11) आअसं. 6472/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2011-12) Ito-22(3)(5), 321, 3Rd Floor, Piramal Chambers, ...... अपीलाथ' /Appellant Lalbaug, Mumbai-400012. बनाम Vs. Universal Trading Company 737/1, Neelgiri, Khar Pali Road, Khar (West), Mumbai-400052. Pan: Aaafu0060E ..... (ितवाद*/Respondent अपीलाथ' +ारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Smita Verma (ितवाद* +ारा/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क, ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2021 घोषणा क, ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/07/2021 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, J.M: These Two Appeals By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-34, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 04.07.2019 Common For The Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Smita VermaFor Respondent: None
Section 133(6)Section 69C

case of assessee for AYs 2010-11 & 2011-12 were re-opened on the ground that the assessee has indulged in obtaining bogus purchase bills from the dealers, declared as hawala operators by the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra. During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) found that ... stock register, etc. to prove trail of goods. Thus, the assessee failed to discharge its onus in proving genuineness of the dealers and alleged bogus purchases from the said dealers. For AY 2010-11, the AO adopted Gross Profit (GP) rate of 33% and thus, made addition

ITO Ward (1)(4), Thane vs. Shri. Ishwarlal Kanji Patel, Thane

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, sans merit

ITA 6467/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 6467/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2010-11) Ito, Ward-1(4), Room No. 11, 6Th Floor, B-Wing, Wagale Industrial Estate, Thane (W)-400604. ...... अपीलाथ' /Appellant बनाम Vs. Shri Ishwarlal Kanji Patel Shop No.04, Dhanlaxmi Shopping Centre, Tutu Estate, Hiranandani Road, Mumbai-400607. Pan: Aqspp2211L ..... (ितवाद*/Respondent अपीलाथ' +ारा/ Appellant By : Ms. Smita Verma (ितवाद* +ारा/Respondent By : None सुनवाई क, ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2021 घोषणा क, ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 12/07/2021 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, J.M: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Thane [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.07.2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11. 2. Ms. Smita Verma Representing The Department Submitted That The Assessee Is Reseller Of Plywood, Laminates, Flush Doors, Panel Doors, Timber

For Appellant: Ms. Smita VermaFor Respondent: None
Section 133(6)

beneficiary of accommodation entries obtained from hawala operators. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer (AO) held that the assessee has obtained bogus purchase bills aggregating to Rs. 15,94,119/- from three hawala dealers. The assessee could neither prove genuineness of the dealers nor the purchases made from ... assessee. Further, the assessee failed to furnish documentary evidence to prove trail of goods, hence, the AO made addition of the entire bogus purchases. In first appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) restricted the addition on account of bogus purchases to 12.5%. The ld. Departmental Representative (DR) placing reliance