“bogus purchases”

Income Tax Officer-25(1)(5), Mumbai vs. M/S. Tushar Engineering Industries, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Income Tax Officer-25(1)(5) M/S. Tushar Engineering Industries Room No. 229, 2Nd Floor, 9, Apurva Ind. Estate, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Vs. Makvana Road, Andheri (E), Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 059 Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aabft 0541 N (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Vijay Kumar Menon Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.01.2021

case leading to the levy of penalty are that the assessing officer in this case made disallowance of 100% on account of bogus purchase of Rs.7,01,341/-. The assessee has supplied the purchase vouchers and the payment where shown to have been made by banking channel. However, drawing adverse ... inference for the non production of the suppliers, the assessing officer disallowed 100% of the bogus purchases. However, the assessing officer did not doubt the sales. The learned CIT-A confirmed the addition. However, ITAT restricted the same to 12.5%. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was also levied

ITO-28(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Mr. Rajesh Haridas Menon, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2009-

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The I.T.O.- 28(2)(5), Mr. Rajesh Haridas Menon, Room No. 308, Tower No. 06, Harison Urjas, Sector – 23, Vashi Railway Station - Plot No. 76, Cidco Service, Complex, Vashi, Vs. Turbhe, Navi Mumbai - 400703 Navi Mumbai - 400705 Pan: Aklpm3720E (Appellant) (Respondent)

order before the Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. CIT (A) after hearing the assessee restricted the addition to 12.5% of the total amount of bogus purchases shown by the assessee. The revenue is in appeal against the said findings of the Ld. CIT (A). 3. The revenue has challenged ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT (A) has erred in directing the A.O. to restrict the addition of bogus purchases to 12.5% as against 100% addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases without appreciating the fact that parties from these purchases were made

Chhabil Tagtmal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (1)(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4816, 4817 & 4818/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 To 2011-12)

assessee. Further, based on the facts, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee and also enhanced the disallowance @ 100% of the alleged bogus purchases. 5. Aggrieved with the above, assessee is in appeal before us. 6. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We notice that

ITO-21(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Shri. Laxmmichand Shah (HUF), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4435/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito-21(2)(2) Shri Laxmichand V. Shah (Huf) Piramal Chambers, 1St Floor Prop. Of Spark Blue Research Ind., बनाम/ Room No.109, Lalbaug Garage No.22/3, Sneha Sadan Vs. Parel, Mumbai-400 012 S.T. Road, Matunga Mahim-West, Mumbai-16 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaahs-4970-F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Sethi-Ld. Dr Assessee By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 24/12/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 04/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

33/Rg.21/349/2014-15 order dated 24/04/2019, the revenue is in further appeal before us. The Impugned order has restricted the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases to the extent of 15.5% of aggregate purchase of ₹4,33,992/- as against estimation of 25% as made by learned Assessing Officer. 2 Shri ... Ld.AO. 3. During assessment proceedings, pursuant to receipt of certain information from Sale Tax Department, Maharashtra, it was alleged that the assessee procured bogus purchase bills of ₹4,33,992/- from an entity namely M/s Shree Amaaya Enterprises. No reply was received in response to notice

Prism Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 6(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 804 & 805/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2011-12)

called for. 5. AO passed the assessment order by making disallowance u/s 14A, 40A(9) of the Act, disallowance in respect of depreciation and bogus purchases. 6. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred the appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee

Dc Engineers Private Limited, Vasi vs. ITO Ward-4(1), Thane

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am M/S. D. C. Engineers Private Limited Ito, Ward – 4(1), Plot No. 36, Survey No.66-1/2, Thane Naikpada, Waliv, Opp. Rapid Pack, Vs. Vasai (E) – 401 208

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Mumbai (‘ld.CIT(A) for short) dated 01.11.2018 has erred in sustaining 25% disallowance on account of bogus purchase for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2010-11. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing ... engineering goods. Information was received from the Sales Tax Department that the assessee is engaged in making bogus purchases of Rs.62,25,917/- from two parties. The assessment was accordingly reopened. 3. The Assessing Officer (‘A.O.’ for short) in this case has made 25% addition on account of bogus purchase

ITO - 33(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Ketan Gokuldas Badiani, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Ito-33(2)(2) Shri Ketan Gokuldas Badiani 848, 8Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, D-303, 3Rd Floor, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Bhoomi Enclave Chs, Vs. Mahavir Nagar, Dahanukarwadi, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400 067

Revenue is aggrieved that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-45, Mumbai (‘ld.CIT(A) for short) dated 21.01.2019 has reduced the addition for bogus purchase of Rs.3,12,24,345/- done @ 100% by the Assessing Officer (A.O. for short) by sustaining only 5% for the assessment year ... Sales Tax Department that the assessee has made Rs.3,12,24,345/- purchases from bogus dealers. The A.O. made 100% addition of the bogus purchase. 2 ITO vs. Shri Ketan Gokuldas Badiani 4. Upon assessees appeal, the ld.CIT(A) noted that the sales has not been doubted. Accordingly, placing reliance

ITO 28 (3)(5), Mumbai vs. M/S Trishar Engineering & Chemical Co., Mumbai

In the result these appeals filed by the revenue stand dismissed

that learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short learned CIT(A)] has reduced the addition by sustaining only 12.5% of the disallowance for bogus purchases. 2. The assessee in this case is engaged into the business of supplier of industrial heating and filtration systems. The assessment was reopened upon ... information from sales tax department that assessee has made purchases from bogus dealers. The Assessing Officer made addition of the bogus purchase as under :- Assessment year Amount Rs. 2009-10 @ 25% 81,640/- 2010-11 @ 35% 1,98,815/- 2011-12 @ 25% 95,510/- 3. Up on assessee's appeal

Arch Pharmalabs Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir. 5(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Him On The Ground That The Appellant Has Not Paid Due Tax In Full U/S 249(4)(A) For The Year Under Appeal. 2. The Cit (A) Ignored The Fact That The Appellant Has Been Registered As Sick Company Under Sick Industrial Companies Act By Bifr & Hence Protected Against The Recovery. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Cit-A) Has Grossly Erred Sum Of Rs.1,87,47,906/- As Bogus Purchases. 4. The Learned Cit-A Has Erroneously Relied Upon Information'S Received From Sales Tax Department & Not Proved Anything Concrete Regarding Alleged Bogus Purchases.

case and in Law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT-A) has grossly erred sum of Rs.1,87,47,906/- as bogus purchases. 4. The learned CIT-A has erroneously relied upon information's received from Sales Tax Department and not proved anything concrete regarding alleged bogus purchases ... Pharmalabs Ltd. 5. The learned CIT-A is not justified in ignoring the various submissions furnished by the appellant in respect of the alleged bogus purchases. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in failing to consider the purchase transactions of the appellant with the alleged bogus seller were at "Arms

ACIT 12(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Harisons Steels Ltd., Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalacit – 12(2)(2) M/S. Harisons Steels Ltd., बनाम/ Rm. No. 262/145, 1St Floor Plot No. Survey Gut No. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 194, Nehroli Taluka Wada, Mumbai Thane – 421312. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaach8891D .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

assessment was reopened based on the information received from DGIT (Investigation Wing) that the assessee company has indulged in obtaining the bogus purchase bills and accounted in the financial statements. Therefore, the A.O has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment and issued notice ... provided the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment to the assessee. The A.O has called for the information in respect of bogus purchases and confirmation from the parties. Since the A.O was not satisfied with the information and made addition of alleged bogus purchases

Praveen Kumar Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO 20(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri N.K. Pradhanआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2692/Mum/2019 (यनधाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) Praveen Kumar Gupta The Income Tax Officer Shop No.228, Motiwal Mansion, Ward 20(2)(5), R. No.208, बनाम/ Maulana Azad Road, 2N D Floor, Piramal Mumbai-400 008 Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Vs. Mumbai-400 012 (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aacpg3961A अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshai, Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.12.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 30.12.2020 आदेश / O R D E R श्री विकास अिस्थी, न्याययक सदस्य के द्िारा Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 06.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Notice Of Hearing Of This Appeal Was Sent To The Assessee Through Rpad. The Notice Has Been Received Back Unserved With Postal Remarks ‘Left’. The Notice Was Sent To The Assessee On The Address Praveen Kumar Gupta; Ay 11-12 Mentioned In Form No.36 Filed By The Assessee. The Assessee Has Not Filed Any Revised Form 36, Intimating New/ Fresh Address. The Notice Of Hearing Of The Appeal Were Earlier Sent To The Assessee Through Rpad For Hearing Fixed On 29.04.2020 & 05.11.2020 As Per File The Same Have Not Been Received Back Unserved Therefore Deemed To Be Served. It Seems, The Assessee Is Not Interested In Pursuing The Appeal. Accordingly, The Same Is Decided On The Basis Of Documents On Record & The Submissions Made By The Learned Departmental Representative.

Year 2011-12 was reopened under section 148 read with section 147 of the Act. As per the information received, the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills amounting to ₹16,00,59,300/- from M/s Miru Enterprises, a declared hawala operator. The Assessing Officer estimated GP at the rate ... bogus purchases and made addition of ₹2,00,07,413/-. Aggrieved, by the assessment order dated 07.11.2016 passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) challenging validity of reopening, as well as, addition on merits

DCIT Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Shoreline Hotels Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue as well as the Cross

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Shoreline Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Central Circle- 1(2), Prop. M/S Marine Plaza, Dur-Ul- R. No. 906, 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Habib, 29, Marine Drive, Bldg., Annex Bldg., M.K. Road, Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabcs1380B

assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the transactions to the satisfaction of the AO. Accordingly, the AO made additions of the amounts of bogus purchases to the income of the assessee and passed assessment orders u/s 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act. The assessee challenged the assessment ... orders before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after hearing the assessee restricted the addition to 17% of the bogus purchases. Aggrieved by the action of the Ld. CIT(A), the revenue has filed the present appeals and the assessee has filed the cross objection

Mr.Sanjay A. Mahadik, Mumbai vs. ACIT 26(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2009-10 Mr. Sanjay A. Mahadik, The Acit-26(3), 1501, Dwarkamai Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bhagat Galli, C-11, Bandra, Vs. Taikal Wadi, Mumbai - 400051 Mahim, Mumbai – 400 016 Pan: Aahpm 7703P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Rs.2,92,000/- as against made by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of the addition of bogus purchases. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee brought to the notice of the Bench that the assessee has gone in Vishwas Se Vivad

DCIT Central Circle-3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Sur Gems, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

ground No.2 & 3 are allowed. 13. The issue raised in ground No.4 is against the part confirmation of addition equal to 8% of the bogus purchases of Rs.4,46,40,227/- by Ld. CIT(A) as against the addition and disallowance of entire bogus purchases of Rs.4 ... assessee and added the entire amount of purchases of Rs.4,46,40,227/- made from various parties connected to Bhanwarlal Jain Group as bogus purchases by framing assessment under section 143(3) read with 153A vide order dated 30.12.2017. 15. The Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal

Sur Gems, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

ground No.2 & 3 are allowed. 13. The issue raised in ground No.4 is against the part confirmation of addition equal to 8% of the bogus purchases of Rs.4,46,40,227/- by Ld. CIT(A) as against the addition and disallowance of entire bogus purchases of Rs.4 ... assessee and added the entire amount of purchases of Rs.4,46,40,227/- made from various parties connected to Bhanwarlal Jain Group as bogus purchases by framing assessment under section 143(3) read with 153A vide order dated 30.12.2017. 15. The Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal

ACIT 32(2), Mumbai vs. Smt Pragna C. Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed; the cross objection by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11

fire fighting systems and allied items. On receipt of information from the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra that the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs.44,47,793/-, the AO reopened the assessment and issued notice u/s 133(6) to the concerned parties for verification. However, those ... filed by the assessee and made an addition of Rs.12,12,468/- on the following reasons : “To determine the exact profit element from such bogus purchases reliance can be placed on the precedent followed by this office by adopting gross profit ratio of assessee's business. As such