“bogus purchases”

Pr CIT-9, Mumbai vs. M/S Capco Water Solutions Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Pr.Cit-9, Vs. M/S. Capco Water Solutions Pvt. Room No.259A, Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Ayakar Bhavan 15A J Laxmi Industrial Estate, Churchgate Link Road Mumbai Andheri (W) Mumbai – 400 053 Pan/Gir No. Aabcc1253B (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in directing the ld. AO to tax only the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases @12.5% in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3. We have heard the ld. DR. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We find that ... find that this Tribunal in series of decisions had held that profit percentage of 12.5% would meet the ends of justice on the alleged bogus purchases in the similar industries in which assessee is engaged into. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order

Anil K Shah (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Shri Anil K. Shah (Huf), The Ito Ward – 23(2)(1), 703, Supershav, Nahur Road, 111, Matru Mandir, Sarvodaya Nagar, Mulund (West), Tardeo, Grant Road, Mumbai - 400080 Vs. Mumbai Pan: Aadha5072M (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Shri Anil K. Shah, The Ito Ward – 23(2)(1), 703, Supershav, Nahur Road, 111, Matru Mandir, Sarvodaya Nagar, Mulund (West), Tardeo, Grant Road, Mumbai - 400080 Vs. Mumbai Pan: Aapps6042M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Devendra Jain (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Jernold Michel (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 21/08/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 10/09/2020

issue mentioned in the reasons recorded for issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. 5. So far as the addition on account of bogus purchases is concerned, the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) has wrongly confirmed the action of AO and upheld the addition ... amounting to Rs. 17,19,214/- on account of alleged bogus purchases made from M/s Prayan Trading Company and M/s Sampark Steels. The Ld. counsel further submitted that since the AO had made addition of the said amount on the ground that the assessee had not submitted receipt

ITO 27 (2)(5), Mumbai vs. Piyush D. Gada, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Ito-27(2)(5) Vs. Shri Piyush D Gada Room No.421, 4Th Floor Flat No.502, Anita Kutir Tower No.6, Vashi Railway Chs Ltd. Station Complex, 90 Feet Road, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Ghatkopar (E) Mumbai – 400 075 Pan/Gir No.Abrpg2822J (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance made on account of bogus purchases in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 3. We have heard ld. DR. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We find that ... infirmity in the action of the ld. CIT(A) accepting the claim of the assessee and deleting the disallowance made on account of bogus purchases. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed. 4. In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced on 10/09/2020

Nilesh Textiles Pvt Ltd, Thane vs. ACIT Circle-1, Kalyan

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1081/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Nilesh Textiles Pvt. Limited, Acit- Circle-1, बनाम/ 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza House No.1504, Gupta Compound Khokha Compound, Agra Road Wayale Nagar, Khadakpada Vs. Bhiwandi, Thane-421 302. Kalyan (W), Thane-421 301. Pan/Gir No. Aaacn-4630-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Ms. Prachi Tambe – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 10/09/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 10/09/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

have been deleted on merits also. Our attention was drawn to the fact that the penalty was levied on account of addition of alleged bogus purchases despite the fact that the assessee was in possession of primary purchase documents. On the other hand, Ld. DR submitted that quantum additions have ... proceedings were triggered pursuant to receipt of certain information from Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra wherein it was alleged that assessee was involved in making bogus purchases of Rs.19.83 Lacs from an entity namely M/s. Bharat Industrial Corporation. During the course of assessment proceedings, the statement of the assessee’s director

DCIT, Circle - 9(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Arco Electro Technologies P. Ltd, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-9(1)(2) The Principal Officer, Mumbai Vs. M/S. Arco Electro Technologies P. Ltd. Plot No. 123, Road No 17, Midc Marol, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400093 Pan No. Aaaca4336L Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Michael Jerald (Dr) Assessee By : None Last Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/09/2020

basis of information received from the Sales Tax M/s. Arco Electro Technologies P. Ltd Department, Govt of Maharashtra that the assessee has obtained bogus purchase bills of Rs. 2,44,755/- for accommodation entries, the AO estimated the profit embedded in it at the rate of 25.98% (the net profit ... find strength in the arguments of the Ld. AR. It is seen that the foundation for the addition of 25.98% of the bogus purchases made in the assessment order is the inference drawn by the AO that the assessee has made the real purchases from the grey market without bills

Aerovent Projects P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Aerovent Projects P. Ltd., Cit(A) 24 Mumbai. C/O R.K Khanna & Associates, Vs. 402, Regent Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021 Pan No. Aaaca4338E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Michael Jerald (Dr) Last Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/09/2020

holding that purchases by the Appellant during the previous year, totalling of Rs. 18,77,948/- “are unsubstantiated as have to be considered as bogus purchases”. 5. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in bringing to tax the entire amount of purchase ... During the course assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee has obtained accommodation entries by bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs. 18,77,948/-. The AO received the above information from the Sales Tax Department, Govt of Maharashtra. On the basis of said information, he made

ITO 26(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Shri Israr Ahmed J B Choudhary, Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Ito-26(1)(5) Vs. Shri Israr Ahmed J B Room No.708, 7Th Floor Choudhary Pratyakshakar Bhavan 23, Vallabhai Halderbhai Bkc, Bandra Compound, Mumbai – 400 051 Lbs Marg, Kurla (W) Mumbai – 400 070 Pan/Gir No.Aaap15555Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

justified in reducing the amount of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act for disallowance made on account of bogus purchases. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We have heard the ld. DR and perused the materials available on record. We find that the assessment ... completed u/s.143(1) of the Act wherein the addition was made on account of bogus purchases in the sum of Rs.3,90,021/-. Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for the same and penalty was levied for Rs.1,42,000/- by the ld. AO. We find

ITO 24(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Deven Ashwin Sanghvi, Mumbai

In the result, misc. application filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

order of learned CIT(A) dated 30.1.2017 pertaining to A.Y. 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2011-12. The Issue relate to restriction on account of bogus purchases to the extent of 15% by learned CIT(A) as against 100% done by the Assessing Officer as under :- 2 Shri Deven Ashwin Sanghvi ... under :- “6. The Grounds of Appeal from 4 to 8, the appellant has challenged the addition of Rs.3,92,15,251/- on account of bogus purchases that are treated as unexplained expenses on purchases u/s 69C of the Act. Similar issue has been decided on similar facts and grounds

ACIT - 32 (3), Mumbai vs. Rajiv R. Ahuja, Mumbai

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

aggrieved that the learned CIT-A has deleted the addition of Rs. 58,750/- by sustaining only Rs. 7344/- disallowance on account of bogus purchases, vide order dated 15.2.2018 pertaining to AY 2012-13. Another ground raised relates to deletion of addition ... department that assessee has made purchases from bogus dealers. 2. The assessing officer in this case has made hundred percent addition on account of bogus purchase amounting to Rs. 58,750/-. 3. Upon assessee's appeal learned CIT-A has noted that the sales has not been doubted. Accordingly placing

Shubhlaxmi Steel, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19 (3), Mumbai

In the result assessee's appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya ()

appeal by the assessee wherein the assessee is aggrieved that the learned CIT-A has erred in sustaining 12.5% disallowance on account of bogus purchases, vide order dated 28.1.2019 pertaining to assessment year 2010-11. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee in this case is engaged ... ferrous metal. The Assessment in this case was reopened upon receipt of information from the sales tax Department that assessee has made bogus purchases. The assessee submitted the purchase vouchers and the payments were made through banking channel. However the suppliers were not produced before the assessing officer. Sales

ITO Ward 1 (5), Thane vs. Shri. Deju Gudda Bolar, Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2009-10,

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm)

received from the Sales Tax Department Govt. of Maharashtra, that during the years relevant to the assessment years under consideration the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills from ‘hawala’ dealers, AO reopened the assessment after issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. Accordingly, the AO passed assessment orders ... assessment year 2010-11 and Rs. 9,11,070/- for the assessment year 2011-12, after making addition @ 31.50% of the total amount of bogus purchases shown by the assessee during the year relevant to the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 and @ 35.50% of the total amount

Khimchand Okchand Bhansali, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -19(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.2682/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2009-10) Khimchandokchand Bhansali Ito-Ward 19(2)(2) बनाम/ Matru Mandir, 2Nd Floor, 601/602, Siddesh Jyoti Balaram Street Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 007. Vs. Mumbai-400 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Afzpb-7737-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Dhaval Shah-Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri R. Bhoopathi-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 02/09/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 02/09/2020 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

accounts and making addition on estimation basis. 4. The Ld. ClT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the disallowanceof alleged bogus purchases of Rs.14,01,716/- being 12.50% of Rs. 1,12,13,732/- in the hands of the appellant. 2.1 We have carefully considered ... Pursuant to receipt of certain information from DGIT (Inv.) / Sales Tax Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, it transpired that the assessee obtained bogus purchases bills aggregating to Rs.112.13 Lacs from as many as 11entities, the details of which have already been extracted in para-2 of the quantum assessment order. Accordingly

Income Tax Officer 1(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Lafit Lighting Private Limited, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Lighting Private Limited Assessment Year :2009-10 3.5 The aforesaid factual matrix led Ld. AO to form a belief that the said purchases were bogus purchases brought into books to inflate the purchase thereby reducing the profits earned by the assessee. Therefore, these purchases were treated as non-genuine

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Kargwal Construction Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Amarjit Singhacit, Circle-6(3)(2) M/S. Kargwal Construction P. Ltd. Room No. 576, 5Th Floor B 102, Runwa Omkar Esquar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Esauare, Off. Easter Express Mumbai 400020 High Way, Sion (East) Mumbai 400022 Pan – Aadck1418N Appellant Respondent

reduced the addition of `21,41,657/- being 100% made by the AO by sustaining only 12.5% disallowance on account of bogus purchases, vide order dated 07.01.2019 pertaining to A.Y. 2009-10. 2. The assessee in this case is engaged in the business of job work and civil contractor ... Department that assessee has made purchases from bogus dealers. The Assessing Officer in this case has made hundred percent addition on account of bogus purchase amounting to `21,41,657/-. Except for reproducing assessee’s reply in the assessment order the AO did not do anything. He simply wrote that