← All Phrases

“bogus purchases”

DisallowancesSection 69CSection 69C9,532 judgments

The decision most relied on for bogus purchases is CIT v. Simit P. Sheth (356 ITR 451), cited in 1,465 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on bogus purchases

CIT v. Simit P. Sheth
356 ITR 451 · 2013 · High Court
1,465
citing judgments

Additions for alleged bogus purchases should be restricted to the profit element, not the entire turnover. The profit element is often estimated at 12.5% of the purported 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.

CIT v. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.
372 ITR 619 · 2015 · High Court
391
citing judgments

Transactions defying human probability cannot be applied to isolated purchases if sales are accepted as genuine, and purchases cannot be disallowed without considering the entire transaction and documentary evidence. Failure to produce parties in an assessment proceeding may not be fatal to the assessee.

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.

Judgments citing bogus purchases

Omprakash Kanaram Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO 32(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2460/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 2460/मुं/2019 (िन.व.2011-12) Omprakash Kanaram Patel The Ito -32(2)(4) Room No.306, C-11, 46-A Wing, Ganjawala Apartment, बनाम/ Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, S.V. P. Road, Borivali (W), Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 051 Mumbai 400 092 Pan/Gir No:Alkpp6740P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Pratap Singh (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147

opened on the basis of information received by DGIT (Investigation) from Maharashtra Sales Tax Department that the assessee has indulged in obtaining bogus purchase bills aggregating to Rs. 1,36,88,928/- from various hawala dealers. The Assessing Officer estimated 2 Gross Profit on non-genuine purchase ... dismissing the appeal of assessee. 4. Submissions made by Departmental Representative (DR) heard and orders of authorities below examined. The assessee has purportedly obtained bogus purchase bills to the tune of Rs. 1,36,88,928/- from various hawala dealers. The assessee failed to prove trail of goods, though

ITO 31(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sh. Ramavadh Ramdhari Yadav, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2634/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 31(3)(1) V. Shri Ramavadh Ramdhari Yadav 307, 3Rd Floor Pratyakshakar Bhavan, C-13 Room No. 408, 4Th Floor Shiv Sagar Industrial Estate Bandra Kurla Complex Kotkar Road, Goregoan (E) Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051 Mumbai - 400063

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Amrita Singh
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

totality of the facts, it will be reasonable to estimate the profit embedded in the 8 Shri Ramavadh Ramdhari Yadav accommodation entries of bogus purchases as undisclosed profit of the appellant. 7.21 The profit from such transactions varies with nature of business and no uniform yardstick can be adopted ... estimation of such profit and the estimations of profit embedded in accommodation entries of bogus purchases transactions @ 12.5% out of purchase price accounted through bogus invoices have been upheld as the fair profit rate out of the bogus purchases by the Hon'ble Courts and Tribunals. In the case

ITO, 28(2)(5), Mumbai vs. M/S Raj Tools Centre, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2557/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Department by Amrita Singh
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 69C

these purchases was to be disallowed. The Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in this case has held that profit margin of 12.5% of the bogus purchases will be reasonable. Respectfully following the Order in the case of Simit P. Sheth the addition is restricted to 12.5% of the bogus purchases

ITO, 28(2)(5), Mumbai vs. M/S Raj Tools Centre, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2556/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Department by Amrita Singh
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 69C

these purchases was to be disallowed. The Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in this case has held that profit margin of 12.5% of the bogus purchases will be reasonable. Respectfully following the Order in the case of Simit P. Sheth the addition is restricted to 12.5% of the bogus purchases

ITO -28(2)(5), Mumbai vs. M/S Raghubar Engineers, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2554/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 28(2)(5) V. M/S. Raghubar Engineers Room No. 308, 6Th Tower Plot No. 2, 34, Room No. 528 Vashi Railway Station Complex The Commodity Exchange Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Sector – 19, Vashi Navi Mumbai Pan: Aakfr6248P (Appellant) (Respondent) None Assessee By : Department By Amrita Singh

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

these purchases was to be disallowed. The Hon'ble Gujrat High Court in this case has held that profit margin of 12.5% of the bogus purchases will be reasonable. Respectfully following the Order in the case of Simit P. Sheth the addition is restricted to 12.5% of the bogus purchases

Cedar Infonet Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6242/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 144Section 14ASection 36

crores was declared under section 132 (4) of the Act at the time of search on the assessee group, on account of bogus purchases and, in such circumstances, the possibility to inflate the purchases cannot be ruled out. 13. On this aspect, while admitting the additional evidence under Rule ... same day the transactions being with a sister concerns, but the fact remains that both the purchases and sales with group concerns, the bogus purchases would naturally be offset with a bogus sale resulting in a zero-sum outcome. Ld. CIT(A) further observed the assessee had offered profit

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Cedar Infonet Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 606/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 144Section 14ASection 36

crores was declared under section 132 (4) of the Act at the time of search on the assessee group, on account of bogus purchases and, in such circumstances, the possibility to inflate the purchases cannot be ruled out. 13. On this aspect, while admitting the additional evidence under Rule ... same day the transactions being with a sister concerns, but the fact remains that both the purchases and sales with group concerns, the bogus purchases would naturally be offset with a bogus sale resulting in a zero-sum outcome. Ld. CIT(A) further observed the assessee had offered profit

I.T.O., Ward-36(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Sr Engineering Corporation, Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1586/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble(Kz) & S. S. Godara, Hon’Ble] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. Nos. 1455 To 1458 /Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2014-15 M/S. S.R. Engineering Corporation.................................................................................Appellant Stephen House, 6Th Floor, Room No. 101, 56E, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Absfs 6791 B] Vs Ito, Ward – 36(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………..........Respondent Kolkata – 700 069. & I.T.A. Nos. 1585 & 1586 /Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Ito, Ward – 36(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………..............Appellant Kolkata – 700 069. Vs M/S. S.R. Engineering Corporation.............................................................................Respondent Stephen House, 6Th Floor, Room No. 101, 56E, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Absfs 6791 B] Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Jcit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 08, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 22, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

challenging the validity of the said assessments as well as disputing the additions made therein on account of the alleged bogus purchases on merit. After considering the submissions made on behalf of the assessee and perusing the relevant material available on record, the 4 I.T.A. Nos. 1455 to 1458/Kol/2019 ... years under consideration, he decided the preliminary issue against the assessee. He however found merit in the claim of the assessee that the alleged bogus purchases in question having been duly recorded in the purchase and stock registers and there being corresponding sales made from the said purchases which

I.T.O., Ward-36(2), Kolkata vs. S.R.Engineering Corporation, Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1585/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble(Kz) & S. S. Godara, Hon’Ble] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. Nos. 1455 To 1458 /Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2014-15 M/S. S.R. Engineering Corporation.................................................................................Appellant Stephen House, 6Th Floor, Room No. 101, 56E, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Absfs 6791 B] Vs Ito, Ward – 36(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………..........Respondent Kolkata – 700 069. & I.T.A. Nos. 1585 & 1586 /Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Ito, Ward – 36(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………..............Appellant Kolkata – 700 069. Vs M/S. S.R. Engineering Corporation.............................................................................Respondent Stephen House, 6Th Floor, Room No. 101, 56E, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Absfs 6791 B] Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Jcit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 08, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 22, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

challenging the validity of the said assessments as well as disputing the additions made therein on account of the alleged bogus purchases on merit. After considering the submissions made on behalf of the assessee and perusing the relevant material available on record, the 4 I.T.A. Nos. 1455 to 1458/Kol/2019 ... years under consideration, he decided the preliminary issue against the assessee. He however found merit in the claim of the assessee that the alleged bogus purchases in question having been duly recorded in the purchase and stock registers and there being corresponding sales made from the said purchases which

S.R.Engineering Corporation, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-36(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1458/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble(Kz) & S. S. Godara, Hon’Ble] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. Nos. 1455 To 1458 /Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2014-15 M/S. S.R. Engineering Corporation.................................................................................Appellant Stephen House, 6Th Floor, Room No. 101, 56E, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Absfs 6791 B] Vs Ito, Ward – 36(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………..........Respondent Kolkata – 700 069. & I.T.A. Nos. 1585 & 1586 /Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Ito, Ward – 36(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………..............Appellant Kolkata – 700 069. Vs M/S. S.R. Engineering Corporation.............................................................................Respondent Stephen House, 6Th Floor, Room No. 101, 56E, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Absfs 6791 B] Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Jcit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 08, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 22, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

challenging the validity of the said assessments as well as disputing the additions made therein on account of the alleged bogus purchases on merit. After considering the submissions made on behalf of the assessee and perusing the relevant material available on record, the 4 I.T.A. Nos. 1455 to 1458/Kol/2019 ... years under consideration, he decided the preliminary issue against the assessee. He however found merit in the claim of the assessee that the alleged bogus purchases in question having been duly recorded in the purchase and stock registers and there being corresponding sales made from the said purchases which

S.R.Engineering Corporation, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-36(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1457/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble(Kz) & S. S. Godara, Hon’Ble] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. Nos. 1455 To 1458 /Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2014-15 M/S. S.R. Engineering Corporation.................................................................................Appellant Stephen House, 6Th Floor, Room No. 101, 56E, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Absfs 6791 B] Vs Ito, Ward – 36(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………..........Respondent Kolkata – 700 069. & I.T.A. Nos. 1585 & 1586 /Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Ito, Ward – 36(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………..............Appellant Kolkata – 700 069. Vs M/S. S.R. Engineering Corporation.............................................................................Respondent Stephen House, 6Th Floor, Room No. 101, 56E, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Absfs 6791 B] Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Jcit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 08, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 22, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

challenging the validity of the said assessments as well as disputing the additions made therein on account of the alleged bogus purchases on merit. After considering the submissions made on behalf of the assessee and perusing the relevant material available on record, the 4 I.T.A. Nos. 1455 to 1458/Kol/2019 ... years under consideration, he decided the preliminary issue against the assessee. He however found merit in the claim of the assessee that the alleged bogus purchases in question having been duly recorded in the purchase and stock registers and there being corresponding sales made from the said purchases which

S.R.Engineering Corporation, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-36(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1456/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble(Kz) & S. S. Godara, Hon’Ble] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. Nos. 1455 To 1458 /Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2014-15 M/S. S.R. Engineering Corporation.................................................................................Appellant Stephen House, 6Th Floor, Room No. 101, 56E, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Absfs 6791 B] Vs Ito, Ward – 36(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………..........Respondent Kolkata – 700 069. & I.T.A. Nos. 1585 & 1586 /Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Ito, Ward – 36(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………..............Appellant Kolkata – 700 069. Vs M/S. S.R. Engineering Corporation.............................................................................Respondent Stephen House, 6Th Floor, Room No. 101, 56E, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Absfs 6791 B] Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Jcit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 08, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 22, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

challenging the validity of the said assessments as well as disputing the additions made therein on account of the alleged bogus purchases on merit. After considering the submissions made on behalf of the assessee and perusing the relevant material available on record, the 4 I.T.A. Nos. 1455 to 1458/Kol/2019 ... years under consideration, he decided the preliminary issue against the assessee. He however found merit in the claim of the assessee that the alleged bogus purchases in question having been duly recorded in the purchase and stock registers and there being corresponding sales made from the said purchases which

S.R.Engineering Corporation, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-36(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1455/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble(Kz) & S. S. Godara, Hon’Ble] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. Nos. 1455 To 1458 /Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2014-15 M/S. S.R. Engineering Corporation.................................................................................Appellant Stephen House, 6Th Floor, Room No. 101, 56E, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Absfs 6791 B] Vs Ito, Ward – 36(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………..........Respondent Kolkata – 700 069. & I.T.A. Nos. 1585 & 1586 /Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Ito, Ward – 36(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………..............Appellant Kolkata – 700 069. Vs M/S. S.R. Engineering Corporation.............................................................................Respondent Stephen House, 6Th Floor, Room No. 101, 56E, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Absfs 6791 B] Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Jcit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 08, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 22, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

challenging the validity of the said assessments as well as disputing the additions made therein on account of the alleged bogus purchases on merit. After considering the submissions made on behalf of the assessee and perusing the relevant material available on record, the 4 I.T.A. Nos. 1455 to 1458/Kol/2019 ... years under consideration, he decided the preliminary issue against the assessee. He however found merit in the claim of the assessee that the alleged bogus purchases in question having been duly recorded in the purchase and stock registers and there being corresponding sales made from the said purchases which

ITO 27(1)(4), Navi Mumbai vs. Dhiraj D. Chhadwa, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3634/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2020AY 2009-10
Section 271(1)(c)

order revenue is in appeal before the ITAT. We have heard the learned departmental representative and perused. We find the addition on account of bogus purchases has been done on estimated basis. The learned CIT(A) is correct in holding that the penalty under section

ITO 28(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Ahmed Mohmed Vasta, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3558/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Income Tax Officer-28(1)(1) Shri Ahmed Mohmed Vasta Room No. 329, 3Rd Floor, 6Th Tower, C-101, Millennium Park, Vs. Vashi Railway Station Complex, Sector-25, Nerul, Vasi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 Navi Mumbai-400 706 Pan/Gir No. Aaapv 4065 E (Appellant) (Respondent) : : Shri Jeetendra Kumar Appellant By Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing : 20.10.2020 : 22.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.:

For Respondent: None

Revenue is aggrieved that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, Mumbai (‘ld.CIT(A) for short) dated 29.03.2019 has reduced the addition for bogus purchase of Rs.4,24,081/- done by the Assessing Officer @ 100% by sustaining only 12.5%. 2. The assessee in this case is engaged into ... information from sales tax department that the assessee has made Rs.4,24,081/- purchases from bogus dealers. The A.O. made 100% addition of the bogus purchase. 4. Upon the assessee’s appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has noted that the sales has not been doubted. Accordingly, placing reliance upon

Lypsa Diamonds, Mumbai vs. ITO WD- 30(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 4436/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 4434/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आिकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 4435/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आिकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 4436/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Lypsa Diamonds Income Tax Officer – Wared 30(2)(1) बिाम/ 2Nd Floor, Mehta Mahal C-13, 6Th Floor, Pratyakshkar Bhawan North Side, 15Th Mathew Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Vs. Charni Road, Mumbai – 400 004 Mumbai – 400 051 स्थािीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl-0410-F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Michael Jerald-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 15/10/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 22/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald-Ld. DR
Section 143Section 145Section 147Section 14ASection 234ASection 274Section 3Section 68Section 69C

Jain Group on 03/10/2013 wherein it was unearthed that the said group was operating and managing 70 benami concerns to provide accommodation entries for bogus purchases / unsecured loans to various beneficiaries. It was found out that the assessee was one of such beneficiaries and therefore, the case was reopened ... specific item-wise additions without disturbing the overall financial results shown in the audited financial statements. Therefore, Ground Nos. 1 to 4 stands dismissed. Bogus Purchase 5. It is quite evident that the assessee has correlated the purchases made from suspicious suppliers with the sale transactions. There could

Lypsa Diamonds, Mumbai vs. ITO WD - 30(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 4435/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 4434/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आिकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 4435/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आिकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 4436/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Lypsa Diamonds Income Tax Officer – Wared 30(2)(1) बिाम/ 2Nd Floor, Mehta Mahal C-13, 6Th Floor, Pratyakshkar Bhawan North Side, 15Th Mathew Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Vs. Charni Road, Mumbai – 400 004 Mumbai – 400 051 स्थािीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl-0410-F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Michael Jerald-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 15/10/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 22/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald-Ld. DR
Section 143Section 145Section 147Section 14ASection 234ASection 274Section 3Section 68Section 69C

Jain Group on 03/10/2013 wherein it was unearthed that the said group was operating and managing 70 benami concerns to provide accommodation entries for bogus purchases / unsecured loans to various beneficiaries. It was found out that the assessee was one of such beneficiaries and therefore, the case was reopened ... specific item-wise additions without disturbing the overall financial results shown in the audited financial statements. Therefore, Ground Nos. 1 to 4 stands dismissed. Bogus Purchase 5. It is quite evident that the assessee has correlated the purchases made from suspicious suppliers with the sale transactions. There could

Lypsa Diamonds, Mumbai vs. ITO WD- 30(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 4434/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 4434/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आिकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 4435/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आिकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 4436/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Lypsa Diamonds Income Tax Officer – Wared 30(2)(1) बिाम/ 2Nd Floor, Mehta Mahal C-13, 6Th Floor, Pratyakshkar Bhawan North Side, 15Th Mathew Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Vs. Charni Road, Mumbai – 400 004 Mumbai – 400 051 स्थािीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl-0410-F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Michael Jerald-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 15/10/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 22/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald-Ld. DR
Section 143Section 145Section 147Section 14ASection 234ASection 274Section 3Section 68Section 69C

Jain Group on 03/10/2013 wherein it was unearthed that the said group was operating and managing 70 benami concerns to provide accommodation entries for bogus purchases / unsecured loans to various beneficiaries. It was found out that the assessee was one of such beneficiaries and therefore, the case was reopened ... specific item-wise additions without disturbing the overall financial results shown in the audited financial statements. Therefore, Ground Nos. 1 to 4 stands dismissed. Bogus Purchase 5. It is quite evident that the assessee has correlated the purchases made from suspicious suppliers with the sale transactions. There could

ITO - 33(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Dinesh Gupta, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3601/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Income Tax Officer – 33(1)(4) Dinesh Gupta Room No. 94B, 9Th Floor, Mumbai Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aegpg 6882 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Hitesh Purohit Respondent By : Shri Jeetendra Kumar Date Of Hearing : 20.10.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2020

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh PurohitFor Respondent: Shri Jeetendra Kumar

Revenue is aggrieved that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-45, Mumbai (‘ld.CIT(A) for short) dated 27.02.2019 has reduced the addition for bogus purchase of Rs.5,82,838/- done by the Assessing Officer @ 100% by sustaining only 12.5%. 2. The assessee in this case is engaged into ... information from sales tax department that the assessee has made Rs.5,82,838/- purchases from bogus dealers. The A.O. made 100% addition of the bogus purchase. 3. Upon the assessee’s appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has noted that the sales has not been doubted. Accordingly, placing reliance upon

ITO - 33(1), Mumbai vs. Asma Niyaz Manihar, Mumbai

In the result this appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3500/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2020AY 2010-11

revenue wherein the revenue is aggrieved that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short learned CIT(A)] has reduced the addition for bogus purchase done @ 25% by AO by sustaining only 12.5% thereof vide order dated 11.2.2019 pertaining to A.Y. 2010-11. 2. The assessee in this case ... information from sales tax department that assessee has made purchases Rs. 96,34,149 from bogus dealers, the AO made 25% addition of the bogus purchase after reducing 3.18% gross profit declared by the assessee resulting in disallowance of Rs. 21,02,171/-. 3. Upon assessee's appeal learned