← 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

ITO-22(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Anand Prakash Diwan, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2645/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Amrita Singh
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

Left” or “Not Known”” and the assessee has not produced the parties before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, Assessing Officer treated 25% of the alleged bogus purchases of ₹.22,34,917/- and ₹.18,32,734/- for the A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11 respectively as non- genuine and added ... sufficient by itself and the ITAT has not accepted such an argument in the case of Shri Ganpatraj A.Sanghavi (supra). If the bogus purchases are unproved and are declared consumed by appellant itself in its trading, manufacturing or non-trading activities, the entire addition can be made as it only

ITO-22(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Anand Prakash Diwan, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2644/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Amrita Singh
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

Left” or “Not Known”” and the assessee has not produced the parties before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, Assessing Officer treated 25% of the alleged bogus purchases of ₹.22,34,917/- and ₹.18,32,734/- for the A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2010-11 respectively as non- genuine and added ... sufficient by itself and the ITAT has not accepted such an argument in the case of Shri Ganpatraj A.Sanghavi (supra). If the bogus purchases are unproved and are declared consumed by appellant itself in its trading, manufacturing or non-trading activities, the entire addition can be made as it only

M/S Nish Gems, Mumbai vs. ITO-21(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2441/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blem/S. Nish Gems V. Income Tax Officer – 21(2)(4) Unit No. 220, 2Nd Floor Piramal Chambers T.V. Industrial Estate, 248 Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012 S.K. Ahire Marg, Worli Mumbai – 400 030 Pan: Aacfn0678B (Appellant) (Respondent) None Assessee By : Department By Amrita Singh

For Appellant: Department by Amrita Singh
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

income of the assessee. On appeal the Ld.CIT(A) sustained the reopening of assessment and restricted to disallowance to 30% of alleged bogus purchases and sustained 70% of the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Inspite of issue of notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee ... Jewels and M/s. Kothari & Co. as non-genuine solely based on the information received from DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai that assessee has booked bogus purchases through one of the concerns which 5 M/s. Nish Gems issued only accommodation entries. No independent enquiries have been conducted by the Assessing Officer before treating

ACIT 28(1), Mumbai vs. Mr. Jaisingh Patel (Prop Separation Engineers (India)), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2996/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2996/Mum/2019 (निर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Smita Verma, DRFor Respondent: None

Revenue wherein the Revenue is aggrieved that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals (in short ‘the CIT(A)’] has reduced the addition for bogus purchases of Mr. Jaisingh Patel; AY 09-10 ₹4,36,010/- done on peak credit basis by Assessing Officer by sustaining only 12.5%. The assessee ... upon information from Sale Tax Department that assessee has made 21,24,977/- purchases from bogus dealers. The Assessing Officer made addition of the bogus purchases amounting to ₹4,36,010/- on peak credit basis. Upon assessee’s appeal the learned CIT(A) has noted that the sales

ITO 19 (1)(3), Mumbai vs. Ganpatraj Nemal Jain, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2730/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Shamim Yahyaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2730/Mum/2019 (निर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Smita Verma, DRFor Respondent: None

Revenue wherein the Revenue is aggrieved that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals (in short ‘the CIT(A)’] has reduced the addition for bogus purchases of Ganpatraj Nemal Jain; AY 10-11 ₹11,09,108/- done @ 25% by Assessing Officer by sustaining only 12.5%. 2. Nature of business ... reopened upon information from Sales Tax Department that assessee has made purchases from bogus dealers. The Assessing Officer made 25% addition of the bogus purchases. Upon assessee’s appeal learned CIT(A) has noted that the sale has not doubted. Accordingly, placing reliance upon several case laws and upon

ITO 26(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Niyaz Ahmed Samiullah Khan, Mumbai

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

ITA 7043/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7043/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito 26(2)(3) बिधम/ Niyaz Ahmed Samiullah Bldg. No. C-11, 7Th Floor,, Khan Vs. Room No. 711, Pratykshakar Room No.3, Sangam Mkt, Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (E), 90 Feet Road, Khadi No. 3 Mumbai-400051. Netaji Nagar, Saki Naka, Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agupk0087D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri V. Tripathi (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26/10/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.06.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -38, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V. Tripathi (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 40A(3)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in restricting the disallowance to 12.5% of the total amount of bogus purchase transaction instead of 25% of the total amount of bogus purchase made by the AO?" A.Y.2011-12 "2. Whether on the facts ... considering that the addition was made on the basis of information received from DIT(lnv.) and Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra with regard to bogus purchase made by the assessee from dealers without supply of actual goods?" "3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Pck Metals P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2226/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri N.K.Pradhanआअसं. 2226/मुं/2017 ("न.व. 2009-10) M/S. Pck Metals Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.1, Kushal Bhavan65, 5Th Kumbharwada, Mumbai – 400 004. Pan: Aadcp88653Q ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V.Sreekar
Section 143(3)Section 69

register and books of account leades to the fact that purchases were not genuine. Thus, the Assessing Officer made addition of the entire alleged bogus purchases under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). The Assessing Officer further made disallowance of interest amounting to Rs.12 ... first appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) in principle accepted the findings of Assessing Officer in holding that the assessee has indulged in obtaining bogus purchase bills from hawala dealers. However, CIT(A) restricted the disallowance by estimating GP @ 12.5% on bogus purchases. As regards disallowance of interest

Evas Machineries Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT 12(2)-1, Mumbai

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

ITA 3148/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2020AY 2009-10
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar P. Menon (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

information was received from the Sales Tax Department, therefore, DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai in which it was conveyed that the assessee has made the bogus purchase of Rs.13,08,846/- during the year under consideration from the following parties.: S. No. Name of the concern PAN F.Y. Amount (Rs.) 1 Tara ... Enterprises AWTPS0269A 2008-09 6,56,414/- 2 Kotson Impex AACCK9104C 2008-09 6,52,432/- Total Amount of bogus purchases 13,08,846/- 2 A.Y.2009-10 Thereafter, the notice was given and after the reply of the assessee, the AO raised the addition to the extent

Diagold Designs Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC- 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assesee for AY 2011-12 is partly allowed and for AY 2014-15 are allowed

ITA 3519/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 3519 & 3520/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years :2011-12 & 2014-15) M/S. Diagold Designs Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cc- 1(2) R-1, Cama Industrial Estate Aaykar Bhawan Walbhat Road M.K.Road Goregaon (East) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400063

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

whether the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 79,60,882/- made on account of alleged bogus purchases in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that ... specifically held that in a case where sales are considered genuine and books of accounts have not been rejected, no addition, on account of bogus purchases can be made. In view of the above discussion and on the facts of the case the addition made by the A.O. on account

Triveni Constructions, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 2, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assesse are partly allowed with regard to the issue of addition made on account of alleged bogus purchases

ITA 3778/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M.Balaganeshita No. 3778 & 3779/Mum/2017 (Assessment Years :2010-11 & 12-13) M/S. Triveni Constructions Vs. Dcit-25(1) 001, Ground Floor C-10, Bkc Balaji Business Park Bandra, Mumbai-400 051 Plat No.3 & 5, Survey No.785, Marol Andheri (E),Mumbai Pan/Gir No.Aafft0913L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rushabh Mehta, Ar Revenue By Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing 29/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement 11/11/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh (A.M):

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

19/02/2020, wherein this Tribunal had recalled the original order passed in the case of the assessee on the limited issue of addition on alleged bogus purchases. We find that the Ld. Counsel for the assesee pleaded before us that this Tribunal had given directions to the Ld. AO to follow ... addition @ 100% of value of purchases made from the said 25 parties to the tune of Rs. 8,96,98,723/- treating them as bogus purchases. This addition was restricted to 12.5% of the value by the Ld.CIT(A) being the profit element embedded in such purchases on the premise

ACIT 13(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Bimal Kumar Agarwal, Mumbai

ITA 3514/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita Nos. 3514 To 3516 & 3518/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 To 2013-14) Acit -13(3)(2) Shree Bimal Kumar Agarwal Room No. 229/219, Vs. 19/40/C-2, Seksaria Indl. 2Nd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Estate, Chincholi Bunder, Off M.K. Road, S.V. Road, Malad (West) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400064 Pan No. Adwpa0759M Revenue Assessee Revenue By : Shri Tharian Oommen, D.R Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 05.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2020 Order Per Bench: The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Cit(A)-21, Mumbai, Dated 08.03.2019, Which In Turn Arises From The Assessment Orders Passed By The A.O Under Sec. 143(3) R.W.S 147 For A.Y. 2009-10, A.Y.2011-12 & A.Y. 2012-13 & Under Sec. 143(3) For A.Y. 2013-14. As Common Issues Are Involved In The Captioned Appeals, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Off By Way Of A Consolidated Order. We Shall First Advert To The Appeal Of The Revenue For A.Y. 2009-10 Wherein The Impugned Order Has Been Assailed Before Us On The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. C.I.T. (A) Erred In Directing The Assessing Officer To Delete The Addition Of Rs. 2,69,38,787/- Made On Account Of Bogus Purchases Ignoring The Fact That The Assessee During The Course Of Survey Proceedings As Well As During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings Had Not Been Able To Furnish Any Evidence To Negate These Clinching Evidences By Producing These Purchase

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Tharian Oommen, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

C.I.T. (A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 2,69,38,787/- made on account of bogus purchases ignoring the fact that the assessee during the course of survey proceedings as well as during the course of assessment proceedings had not been able ... case and in law the Ld. C.I.T. (A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer to delete that addition made on account of bogus purchases ignoring the fact that ii is a settled provision of law that the onus is upon the assessee to prove the genuineness of the alleged purchases

ITO - 28(1)(2), Navi Mumbai vs. M/S Bmh Concare Technology Inc, Navi Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3092/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3092/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10) Income Tax Officer-28(1)(2) M/S. Bmh Concare Technology Inc. बनाम/ Room No.325, 3Rd Floor Plot No.16, Sector-6 Tower No.6,Vashi Railway Station Sanpada, Navi Mumbai-400 705 Vs. Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Pan/Gir No. Aagfb-6284-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Oommen Tharian-Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 10/11/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 10/11/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Oommen Tharian-Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

Navi Mumbai [in short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Appeal No. CIT-26/IT/231/2015-16 dated 25/02/2019 in restricting certain addition on account of alleged bogus purchases to 12.5% of total bogus purchases of Rs.52,97,038/- M/s. BMH Concare Technology Inc. Assessment Year: 2009-10 2. Although none appeared ... year under consideration u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 09/03/2015 wherein it was saddled with peak addition of Rs.42.53 Lacs on account of alleged bogus purchase. The same stem from information received from Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra wherein it transpired that the assessee made aggregate purchases of Rs.52.97 Lacs from

M/S Indo Unique Trding Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT5(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are

ITA 405/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Uodal Raj Singh

Appeals)-10, Mumbai (‘ld.CIT(A) for short) dated 30.10.2018. M/s. Indo Unique Trading Private Limited 2. The issue is sustaining of addition for bogus purchase @ 8% by the ld. CIT(A) as against 9% done by the Assessing Officer (A.O.). The assessee in its appeal has also challenged the validity ... reopened on the basis of information received from DCIT(Investigation), Mumbai that during the previous year, the assessee has taken the accommodation earlier in bogus purchase. The A.O. made 9% addition of the bogus purchase as under: A.Y. Amount

DCIT- Circle-5 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Indo Unique Trading Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and the assessee’s appeals are

ITA 421/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Uodal Raj Singh

Appeals)-10, Mumbai (‘ld.CIT(A) for short) dated 30.10.2018. M/s. Indo Unique Trading Private Limited 2. The issue is sustaining of addition for bogus purchase @ 8% by the ld. CIT(A) as against 9% done by the Assessing Officer (A.O.). The assessee in its appeal has also challenged the validity ... reopened on the basis of information received from DCIT(Investigation), Mumbai that during the previous year, the assessee has taken the accommodation earlier in bogus purchase. The A.O. made 9% addition of the bogus purchase as under: A.Y. Amount

The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. El Dorado Biotech Private Limited, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1823/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2020AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Ketan Shah & Aman ShahFor Respondent: Shri M.S.A. Khan, CITDR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

statement recorded during the search has admitted that he was engaged in providing the accommodation entries in the form of share capital, bogus purchases, bogus sales and the bogus investments through the companies as discussed above. 7. In view of the above, the AO initiated the income escapement proceedings under

ITO 29(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Nilesh Natwarlal, Mumbai

Accordingly. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) granting this relief to the assessee. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3340/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 3340/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Ms. Kavita P. KaushikFor Respondent: Shri Aditya, AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

unloading charges. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny u/s 148 of the Act and it was alleged that assessee is indulged in bogus purchases. Accordingly, assessment order was reopened u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act thereby making 100% disallowance of the alleged bogus purchases determining the total ... assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) after considering the case of assessee, restricted the disallowance @ 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases with the following observations:- The AO disallowed the entire amount during the assessment proceedings an amount of Rs.1,86,74,051/- purchases from various

M/S B Vijay Kumar & Co, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle-3(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2313/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2313 & 2314/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14)

For Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, DR

offices and residential premises of assessee and its group concern and it was alleged that assessee and its group concern are indulged in bogus purchases. Accordingly, assessment was reopened and AO made addition @ 9% on account of bogus purchases by relying on various judgments. 4. Aggrieved by the above order ... before us, the assessee is in appeal challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition @ 6% on account of alleged bogus purchases. 6. At the outset, Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted before us that this ground is squarely covered by the order

Navin Jaidhand Doshi, Mumbai vs. DCIT-23(3), Mumbai

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 5600/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5600/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, DR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271Section 3Section 68

search and seizure action was taken in premises of assessee and its group concern and it was alleged that assessee is indulged in bogus purchases. Accordingly, assessment was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Thereafter, AO made addition on account of bogus purchases to the assessee ... assessee submitted before us that assessee is not pressing Ground No. 1 to 3. With regard to ground no. 4 on account of bogus purchase, Ld. AR submitted that this ground is squarely covered by the consolidated order of Coordinate Bench of Hon’ble ITAT in ITA 2606, 2605 & 2604/Mum/2016

Ganapati Developers, Howrah vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-47, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 250Section 68

were directed to be added and that this was wrong for the reason that, the purchases were not undisclosed purchases but was only alleged bogus purchases. d) He argued that when the addition for which the re-opening was made is not sustained, then no further addition can be made ... both these enterprises and it was much lesser amount of goods which were purchased and hence the disallowance on the ground that these were bogus purchases, is bad in law. He referred to the assessment order where at page 6, the list of entities stated therein said to have benefitted

ACIT 32(2), Mumbai vs. Shri. Keyur S Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2992/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 2992/मुं/2019 ("न.व.2009-10) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax 32(2), Room No.720, 7Th Floor, Kautilya Bhavan, C 41-43, G Block, Bkc, Bandra(E) : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Mumbai 400 051 बनाम/ Vs. Shri Keyur S. Shah, Shop No.7, Mansarovar Chs Ltd., Satya Nagar, Off Link Road, Behind Malpany Ground, Borivali (West) Mumbai 400 092 Pan: Azaps2745P : ""थ"/ Respondent Assessee By : None : Ms Smita Verma Revenue By सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 02/11/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 02/11/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: None
Section 143(3)

items. On the basis of an information received by DGIT(Inv), Mumbai from Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra that the assessee has obtained bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs.47,79,660/- from declared hawala dealers, assessment for assessment year 2009-10 in the case of assessee was reopened ... Assessing Officer after making detailed investigation concluded that the assessee has obtained bogus purchase bills from suspicious dealers to match the purchases made from grey market. The Assessing Officer estimated GP @16% on bogus purchases and made addition of Rs.7,64,746/-. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 26/02/2015 passed