← 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

Ramchandra U Choudhary, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4588/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman. आअसं. 4588/मुं/2019 ("न.व.2010-11) Ramachandra U Choudhary, Ashapura Steel India, Shop No.4, 55/57, Golpitha Bldg. 4Th Kumbharwada, Mumbai 400 004. : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pan:Ahrpc 0300M बनाम/ Vs. Ito-19(3)(1), Room No.202, Matru Mandir, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 007 : ""थ"/ Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi
Section 144Section 148

basis of information received by DGIT(Inv), Mumbai from Sales Tax Department, Government of 2 Maharashtra that the assessee has indulged in obtaining bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs.22,77,663/- from various suspicious dealers, the assessment in the case of assessee for assessment year 2010-11 was reopened. Despite ... before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer completed assessment under section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act and made addition of the entire alleged bogus purchases. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 05/02/2016, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). During the first appellate proceedings the assessee againchoose

Asst. CIT-11(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Racheta Interiors Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4541/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri S.Rifaur Rahman. आअसं. 4541/मुं/2019 ("न.व.2011-12) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax-11(1)(1), 2Nd Floor, Room No.204, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Mumbai 400 020 बनाम/ Vs. M/S. Racheta Interiors Pvt. Ltd., 59, Appollo Industrial Premises, Off.Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 093 Pan: Aaecr3723N : ""थ"/ Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

short ‘the Act’). Subsequently, on the basis information received from the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra that assessee has obtained bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs.5,48,211/- from M/s.Mahalaxmi Corporation, a declared hawala dealer, the assessment for assessment year 2011-12 was reopened. In reassessment proceedings, the assessee ... produce any document nor confirmation from supplier of the goods to prove genuineness of purchases. The Assessing Officer made addition of the entire alleged bogus purchases. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 31/08/2016 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before

ITO 25(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Sohanlal Punaramji Sangar, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4510/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 25(1)(2) V. Sohanlal Punaramji Sangar Room No. 204, 2Nd Floor B-103, Sidhhant Complex Kautilya Bhavan Radha Krishna Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra(E) Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400069 Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Akcps3014N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Paras Jain Department By Shri Sanjay J. Sethi

For Appellant: Shri Paras Jain
Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 40A(3)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of the total amount of bogus purchase transaction to the tune of Rs. 14,327/-. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... failed to appreciate the fact that provision of section 40A(3) are attracted in the case of assessee and 100% bogus purchase amount is to be disallowed. 5. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that

ITO 27(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Paresh P Sanghavi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4494/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 27(2)(5) V. Paresh P. Sanghavi Room No. 421, 4Th Floor 22, Vaikunth, Sindhi Society 6Th Tower, Vashi Railway Station Complex Chembur, Mumbai - 400071 Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Pan: Aahps4872K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Makrand Palkar Department By Shri Sanjay J. Sethi

For Appellant: Shri Makrand Palkar
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 69C

restricting the disallowance to 12.5% of purchases as against addition of peak credit of ₹.17,15,788/- out of total bogus purchases of ₹.19,60,396/- as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act. 2 Paresh P. Sanghavi 2. Briefly stated the facts are that, the assessee engaged ... assessee did not produced the parties before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, Assessing Officer treated maximum peak credit of ₹.17,15,788/- out of total bogus purchases of ₹.19,60,396/- as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act as non-genuine and added to the income of the assessee

Parin Ashok Tolia, Mumbai vs. ITO 27(2)(5), Mumbai

ITA 4478/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya () & Shri Ravish Sood () Parin Ashok Tolia Income Tax Officer -27 (2)(5) 604, Sahyadri, Neelkanth Valley, Vs. Tower 6, Vashi Railway Station Rajawadi, Ghatkopar (East), Commercial Complex, Mumbai – 400077 Navi Mumbai – 400077

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

necessary verification nor link the consumption of the materials with his production activity, the A.O holding a conviction that the assessee had booked bogus purchases disallowed the entire amount of such purchases and added back the same to the returned income of the assessee. ITA No. 4478/Mum/2019 ... onus and, thus, could not prove the authenticity of the aforesaid purchase transaction, the A.O added the entire amount of the impugned purchases as bogus purchases booked by the assessee. On a perusal of the orders of the lower authorities, we find that the assessee in order to substantiate

ITO 21 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ramesh B Musale, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4465/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito-21(3)(1), Ramesh B Musale, Room No. 207, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Room No.-382, Ground Floor, Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Adarsh Nagar, Building No. 23, Mumbai-400012. Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. Pan No. Ajtpm 0744 R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Smita Verma, Dr Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 11/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)has erred in upholding only 30% addition of Rs.2,66,147/- on the bogus purchases in the case of purchase from Goodluck Impex and Suraj Steel as against the AO's stand of disallowing 100% of the bogus purchases ... total income at Rs.10,02,120/-. Subsequently, on receipt of information from the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra that the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills from two parties i.e. Goodluck Impex (Rs.15,733/-) and Suraj Steel (Rs.2,50,414/-), the Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment by issuing

DCIT 12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. American Spring & Pressing Works P Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4111/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S American Spring & Pressing Tax-12(1)(1), Vs. Works Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 128C, 1St Floor, Aspee House, B.J. Patel Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, Post Box No. 7602 Malad (W), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aaaca 8979 P Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Brajendra Kumar, Dr Assessee By : Mr. B.P. Purohit, Ar Date Of Hearing : 06/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021

For Appellant: Mr. B.P. Purohit, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Brajendra Kumar, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148

justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,88,768/- made by the AO on account of 2 M/s American Spring bogus purchases without appreciating the fact that assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the purchases. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT is requested ... assessee on the ground that as per the information received from the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra, the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs.15,10,144/- from M/s Jay Enterprises and therefore, estimated the profit @ 12.5% on the disputed purchases of Rs.15,10,144/-, which comes

Mr. Staney Silvester Menezes, Mumbai vs. ITO 23(3)(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2364/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2364 & 2365/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & 2011-12)

For Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 69C

I.T.A. No. 2364 & 2365/Mum/2019 Mr. Staney Silvester Menezes Accordingly, AO treated the whole purchases as bogus and made 100% disallowance on the alleged bogus purchases. 6. Aggrieved by the above order of AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee ... preferred appeal by raising the grounds of appeal as under:- 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition u/s. 69C of alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 3,41,437/- made from M/s. Bhumi Sales Corporation without appreciating that section 69C is not applicable as payments for purchases were made

Shri Sunder Das Sonkia, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1383/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1383/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sunder Das Sonkia, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. Sonkia Bhawan, Sms, Highway, Ward-1(2), Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Akhps 7413 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 09/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.O., Cuke Shri Sunder Das Sonkhiya, Vs. Ward-1(2), Prop.- M/S Naveen Jewellers, Jaipur. Sonkhiya Bhawan, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur. Pan No.: Akhps 7413 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeal Filed By The Assessee & The Cross Appeal Filed By The Revenue Arise Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 08/11/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee & The Revenue Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT)
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

correct in holding that trading addition of Rs. 2,48,87,372/- made by the A.O. on account of disallowance of 25% of bogus purchases on the basis of corroborative information received from Investigation Wing, Mumbai is not sustainable and only a trading addition ... case, the reasons says that assessee has suppressed its profits by taking accommodation entry of Rs. 11,60,43,373/- in the nature of bogus purchases from four companies. The A.O. has not examined the information received by him to verify whether assessee has made any purchases from these parties

Mrs. Premlata Tekriwal, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

ITA 1129/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri A. T. Varkey

Section 139Section 147Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

Premlata Tekriwal I.T.A. No.1132&1133/KOL/2018 Binod Kumar Tekriwal in order to come to a solution it is requested to treat 2% of the purported bogus purchase of Rs.54,13,476/-to be added with the total income for the said years". The submission furnished by A/R of the assessee ... acceptable. As the assessee got some benefit of such bogus purchase there would be no denial of the fact that assessee's estimated income will increase to certain extent. Considering the fact of the case and on given circumstances, there should be logical conclusion in increasing the income

Binod Kumar Tekriwal, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

ITA 1133/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri A. T. Varkey

Section 139Section 147Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

Premlata Tekriwal I.T.A. No.1132&1133/KOL/2018 Binod Kumar Tekriwal in order to come to a solution it is requested to treat 2% of the purported bogus purchase of Rs.54,13,476/-to be added with the total income for the said years". The submission furnished by A/R of the assessee ... acceptable. As the assessee got some benefit of such bogus purchase there would be no denial of the fact that assessee's estimated income will increase to certain extent. Considering the fact of the case and on given circumstances, there should be logical conclusion in increasing the income

Binod Kumar Tekriwal, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

ITA 1132/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri A. T. Varkey

Section 139Section 147Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

Premlata Tekriwal I.T.A. No.1132&1133/KOL/2018 Binod Kumar Tekriwal in order to come to a solution it is requested to treat 2% of the purported bogus purchase of Rs.54,13,476/-to be added with the total income for the said years". The submission furnished by A/R of the assessee ... acceptable. As the assessee got some benefit of such bogus purchase there would be no denial of the fact that assessee's estimated income will increase to certain extent. Considering the fact of the case and on given circumstances, there should be logical conclusion in increasing the income

Mrs. Premlata Tekriwal, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

ITA 1131/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri A. T. Varkey

Section 139Section 147Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

Premlata Tekriwal I.T.A. No.1132&1133/KOL/2018 Binod Kumar Tekriwal in order to come to a solution it is requested to treat 2% of the purported bogus purchase of Rs.54,13,476/-to be added with the total income for the said years". The submission furnished by A/R of the assessee ... acceptable. As the assessee got some benefit of such bogus purchase there would be no denial of the fact that assessee's estimated income will increase to certain extent. Considering the fact of the case and on given circumstances, there should be logical conclusion in increasing the income

Mrs. Premlata Tekriwal, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT - 10, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

ITA 1130/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri A. T. Varkey

Section 139Section 147Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

Premlata Tekriwal I.T.A. No.1132&1133/KOL/2018 Binod Kumar Tekriwal in order to come to a solution it is requested to treat 2% of the purported bogus purchase of Rs.54,13,476/-to be added with the total income for the said years". The submission furnished by A/R of the assessee ... acceptable. As the assessee got some benefit of such bogus purchase there would be no denial of the fact that assessee's estimated income will increase to certain extent. Considering the fact of the case and on given circumstances, there should be logical conclusion in increasing the income

Smt. Bramhadevi S Mishra, Mumbai vs. ITO-17(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 254/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Mr. Prateek Jha, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 41(1)

processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. On receipt of information from the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra that the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills from M/s Navoday Trading Impex Ltd., (‘Navoday’) the AO re-opened the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 dated 26.03.2014. During the course ... that a reasonable opportunity of being heard should be given to the assessee as the additions made by the AO are on account of bogus purchases and cessation of liability. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file

ACIT-18(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Jewellers Narandas & Sons, Mumbai

Accordingly, we allow ground no. 1 raised by the assessee in CO. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the assessment order, we notice that Ground no. 2 raised by the assessee is only on merit, t...

ITA 1226/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1226/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Acit-18(1), M/S Jewellers Narandas & Room No. 202, 2Nd Floor, बिधम/ Sons, 255, Sheik Menon Earnest House, Nariman Street, Zaveri Bazar, Vs. Point, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 002 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaafj2885J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & C.O. No. 59/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) M/S Jewellers Narandas & Acit-18(1), Room No. 202, 2Nd Floor, बिधम/ Sons, 255, Sheik Menon Street, Zaveri Bazar, Earnest House, Nariman Vs. Mumbai-400 002 Point, Mumbai-400 002 (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Vijay Kumar G. Subrahmanyam, Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri K. Shivaraman, Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.12.2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 14.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Vijay kumar GFor Respondent: Shri K. Shivaraman, AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

loose diamonds and how much is kept in the form of diamond jewellery. He observed that it is established that assessee has taken a bogus purchase bill from accommodation entry providers. It is doubtful that the bill would correspond to the actual cost that the assessee incurred in the grey ... purchases and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations:- 6. All the grounds of appeal are related to the bogus purchase of Rs. 4,60,17,324/- by the appellant. For the sake of convenience, all the grounds of appeal are discussed together. 6.1 The appellant

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Madhyam Construction Company Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 6078/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conference) A.Y. : 2011-12 Acit, Central Circle-8, Room Vs M/S Madhyam No. 333, Ara Centre, Construction Jhandewalan Extn., New Company Pvt. Ltd., Delhi B-2/6, Plot No. 2, Ashok Nagar, Db Gupta Road, Near Faiz Chowk, Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 5 (Pan: Aadcm8688G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 153A

case the gross profit rate of assessee was @9.25% and the Bench has directed the Assessing Officer to retain the addition @9.25% of the bogus purchases. He requested that the same direction may be issued in the present case of the assessee also. To support this averments, he has also ... Tribunal’s order dated 24.12.2020 is reproduced as under:- “4.1 Coming to the alternative arguments of the Ld. AR that in the case of bogus purchases, if they are not written off or reduced from the closing stock then, necessarily in the sale price the same is included and therefore

Asst CIT 28(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Ashtavinayak Construction, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4406/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit, D.R

raised by the Revenue in this appeal is against the deletion of addition by Ld. CIT(A) to the extent of 82% of the bogus purchases as against the 100% disallowance made by the AO towards the bogus purchases. The assessee has filed cross objection challenging the part confirmation ... addition to the extent of 18% of the bogus purchases. 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the issue of bogus purchases has been decided in the assessee’s own case in ITA No.3821/M/2015 A.Y. 2011-12 & ors. vide order dated 09.10.2017 wherein

ITO-26(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ajay C. Shah, Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4225/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2010-11 Income Tax Officer Mr. Ajay C. Shah, 26(1)(1), 60A/11, Sion Mahavir Room No.303, 3Rd Floor, Chs Scheme, Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Road No.25C, Bandra Kurla Complex, Near Jalin Bhavan, Bandra (E), Sion (W), Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai - 400022 Pan: Aaeps4543C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Brajendra Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.01.2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Revenue has challenged the order of Ld. CIT(A) wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has partly deleted the addition @ 87.50% of the bogus purchases as against the 100% made by the AO on account of bogus purchases. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return ... issuing notice under section 148 dated 27.03.2017 after the AO received information from the DDIT(Inv.) Wing, Mumbai that assessee is a beneficiary of bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.5,93,086/-. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee filed various evidences/details to prove the genuineness

Sky Gem, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT- 33, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 2308/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2308/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sky Gem Pr. Cit-33 बनाम/ C-12, 5Th Floor, Pratyakshkar Bhavan Cc-2081, Bharat Diamond Bourse Vs. Bkc, Bandra(E), Mumbai-400 051 Bkc Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aayfs-8765-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Suchek Anchaliya-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Tiwari- Ld. Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 13/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 13/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Challenges The Validity Of Revisional Jurisdiction U/S 263 As Exercised By Learned Pr. Commissioner Of Income-Tax-33, Mumbai [In Short Referred To As ‘Pr.Cit’], For Assessment Year [In Short Referred To As ‘Ay’] 2014- 15, Vide Order Dated 29/03/2019. The Effective Grounds Taken By The Assessee Read As Under:- 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit Erred In Setting Aside The Assessment Order U/S 263 Of The Act Without Fully Appreciating The Facts Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Tiwari- Ld. CIT DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

dated 09.07.2018. 5. The learned CIT erred in his observation that the learned AO wrongly made addition on adhoc basis @3% of the alleged bogus purchases without any justification and reason which is factually incorrect in as much as the learned AO in his order vide para 8.8 on page ... 21/12/2016 wherein it has been saddled with addition of Rs.7.40 Lacs on account of estimated addition of 3% on alleged bogus purchases. During assessment proceedings, pursuant to receipt of information as received from Sales Tax Department, it transpired that the assessee made aggregate purchases of Rs.246.98 Lacs from an entity