“ bogus purchases ”

CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd.

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.

355 ITR 290 · 2013 · High Court

712

Sanjay Oilcake Industries v. CIT

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.

316 ITR 274 · 2009 · High Court

460

Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asst. CIT

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.

58 ITD 428 · 1996 · ITAT

430

CIT v. Odeon Builders Pvt. ltd.

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.

418 ITR 315 · 2019 · Supreme Court

408

CIT v. Nikunj Exim Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.

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.

372 ITR 619 · 2015 · High Court

391

Nikunj Eximp Enterprises v. CIT

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.

216 Taxmann 171 · 2013 · High Court

325

54 Taxmann.com 108 · 2015 · High Court

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

279

ITA 6915/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

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

ITO 21 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. Arti Sanjiv Malviya, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year : 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-21(1)(2), Arti Sanjiv Malviya, Mumbai 5 C, Jayendra Bhavan-35, Vs. S.K.Bhole Road, Dadar(W), Mumbai [Pan : Ahopm4266B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.Michael Jerald, DRFor Respondent: NONE

Section 271(1)(c)

assessment for the AY.2009- 10 was re-opened. In re-assessment proceedings, the addition of Rs.4,32,460/- was made on account of bogus purchases : 2 : from declared Hawala dealers. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act as well. The AO levied penalty ... Authority (FAA), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Shri S.Michael Jerald, representing the Department, submitted that the assessee had indulged in bogus purchases from Hawala dealers. The assessee could not prove genuineness of the purchases and the dealers. Hence, addition of Rs.4,32,460/- was made

ITO 19 (3)(3), Mumbai vs. Shrenik Champalal Jain, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for both the impugned assessment years are dismissed

ITA 6909/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri R.Bhoopathi, DR

AYs.2010-11 & 2011-12 were re-opened. In the re-assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee has indulged in obtaining bogus purchase bills from certain hawala dealers and thus, made addition of Rs.20,75,932/- in AY.2010-11 and Rs.40,45,421/- in AY.2011-12 ... alleged bogus purchases in respective assessment years. : 2 : ITA Nos. 6909 & 6910/Mum/2018 Aggrieved against the assessment orders for the respective assessment years, the assessee filed appeals before the CIT(A). 3. The CIT(A) vide impugned order common for both the impugned assessment years, restricted the addition

ACIT- 19 (2), Mumbai vs. New Look Brassiere Co., Mumbai

In the result, the Cross-Objection of assessee is partly allowed, in terms aforesaid

ITA 6906/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyassessment Year : 2010-11 The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S.New Look Brassiere Co., Income Tax-19(2), 204, J.S.S.Road, Vs. Mumbai Girgaum, Mumbai [Pan : Aaafn1454B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Miss. Dinkle Hariya, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.Bhoopathi, DR

ITA 6905/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

assessee for the AY.2010-11 was re-opened. In re-assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) held that the assessee has indulged in obtaining bogus purchase bills from the following Hawala dealers aggregating to Rs.8,70,548/- : S.No Name of the Hawala Party Bill Amount Rs. 1 Hemal Enterprises ... C.O.No.264/Mum/2019 4. The CIT(A) vide impugned order, partly allowed the appeal of assessee and restricted addition to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases. Against the order of First Appellate Authority (FAA), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. In the Cross-Objections, the assessee has assailed

ITO 17 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bhavesh N. Shah, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyassessment Year : 2009-10 The Income Tax Officer, Shri Bhavesh N.Shah, -17(1)(2), B-11, Suprabhat Apartments Vs. Mumbai Off. S.K.Bole, Dadar, Mumbai [Pan : Aadps2156G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri R.Bhoopathi, DR

ITA 6131/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

assessee for the AY.2009-10 was re-opened. In the re-assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) held that the assessee has indulged in obtaining bogus purchase bills from the following hawala dealers, aggregating to Rs.1,44,41,696/- : : 2 : S.No Name of the Party Bill Amount Rs. 1 Dhruv Sales ... vide impugned order, partly allowed the appeal of assessee, restricting the addition to the extent of 8% of the alleged bogus purchases. Against the order of First Appellate Authority (FAA), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Shri R.Bhoopathi, representing the Department, vehemently defended the assessment order

ACIT -Circle -7(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Printel Cardz Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6131/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) A.C.I.T, Circle-7(3)(2) M/S. Printel Cardz Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ 1St Floor, Room No. 128A, 135 A-Z Industrial Estate, G.K Marg, Lower Parel, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 013 Mumbai-400020. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aadcp1723F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora, Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : None सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 16.12.2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 20.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -13 In Short Referred As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, Mumbai, Dated 20/07/2018 For Assessment Year (In Short Ay) 2010-11, Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Allowed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Penalty A.Y 2010-11 M/S. Printed Cardz P.Ltd . Order Passed U/S 271 (1) (C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short The ‘Act’) By Deleting The Same.

For Appellant: Shri Kumar PadmapaniFor Respondent: None

Section 143(1)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 274

assessment A.O estimated the profit @ 12.5% on such transaction made by the assessee and made addition of Rs. 6,03,408/- on account of bogus purchase transaction. Thereafter, the A.O also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(c) of the Act by issuing of notice u/s 274 r.w.s ... appeal before us. 5. At the time of hearing, it is brought to our notice that the penalty was levied on the alleged bogus purchases and the income was estimated, the same was also confirmed by the Ld. DR. Therefore, in our considered view and in the catena of cases

Dinesh Babulal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 5771/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dinesh Babulal Jain, The Ito 19(1)(4), 321, Amrut Diamond House, Income Tax Office, Tata Road No. 1, Opera House, Matru Mandir, Nana Chowk, Mumbai - 400004 Vs. Grant Road (West), Pan : Agvpj0725E Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi (AR)For Respondent: Shri R. Boopathi (DR)

Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

income of the assessee. In the first appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to 3% of the total amount of bogus purchases determined during the reassessment proceedings. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The assessee has challenged the impugned order passed ... Simit P. Sheth (supra), I agree with the action of the AO estimating the addition on the profit element embedded on such bogus purchases. 7.13 However, AO estimated the profit margin @ 8% and the reasons given are that, most of the traders in the market actually operate at this level

Shri Mukeshkumar Bhandari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the ground no

ITA 5326/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhshri Mukeshkumar Bhandari Ito - 19(2)(3) 40/27, Ground Floor, Shree Niwas Matru Mandir, Nana Chowk, Bldg, 2Nd Carpenter Street, Vs. Mumbai-400007. C.P. Tank, Mumbai-400004. Pan: Agqpb2876F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Miss. Arbina Shaikh (AR)For Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari (Sr. DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 254(1)

section 143(3) r.w.s 147. 4. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the action of Assessing Officer and disallowances made on account of bogus purchases was sustained. Further, aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before us. 5. We have heard ... recording valid reasons. The Assessing Officer relied on the information of third parties. The ld. AR submits that the disallowance of 12.5% of the bogus purchases is on higher side. The 5 ITA No. 5326 Mum 2018-Shri Mukeshkumar Bhandari. assessee has already declared profit @ 10.09% in the books

Income Tax Officer Ward 3(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Hitesh Rameshchandra Thakkar, Mumbai

In the result these appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 5314/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Akhtar H. AnsariFor Respondent: None

Revenue is aggrieved that the learned CIT(A) has deleted part of the 100% addition by sustaining only 12.5 % disallowance on account of bogus purchases, vide common order dated 08.06.2018 pertaining to assessment years 2009-10 & 2011-12. 2. The assessee in this case is engaged in the business ... Sales Tax Department that the assessee has made purchase from bogus dealers. The AO in this case has made 100% addition on account of bogus purchase amounting to `44,554 for A.Y. 2009-10 and `2,70,907/- for A.Y. 2011-12. 3. Up on assessee's appeal learned

Income Tax Officer Ward 3(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Hitesh Rameshchandra Thakkar, Mumbai

In the result these appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 5313/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Akhtar H. AnsariFor Respondent: None

M/S. Chandukaka Saraf and Co, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax - (Central), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 759/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Vipin K. GujarathiFor Respondent: Mrs. Nandita Kanchan

Section 131Section 132Section 263

Pune‟s order number 2895, dated 13.02.2015. During the course of search and post search it was detected that the assessee had booked huge bogus purchases in form of purchases from Unregistered Dealers (in short „URD). The Assessing Officer at para 6.1 of his order had issued summons

Salman Razzak Chhapra, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue and assessee, (in ITA Nos

ITA 7514/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhआयकर अपील सुं./ Ita Nos. 6942 & 6943/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Income Tax Officer Salman R. Chhapra Room No. 401, C-10, 101, 1St Floor, Ayesha Tower बनाम/ Pratykshkar Bhavan, Bkc, Sv Road, Andheri (W), Vs. Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400 102 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Ahjpc1214E आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita Nos. 7514 & 7515/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) Salman R. Chhapra The Income Tax Officer 101, 1St Floor, Ayesha Tower Room No.401, C-10, बनाम/ Sv Road, Andheri (W), Pratykshkar Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Mumbai-400 102 Bandra (E), Mumbai-400051 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, Dr प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Jitendra Singh, Ar ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19.12.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2019

For Appellant: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, DRFor Respondent: Shri Jitendra Singh, AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

restricting the addition of profit rate at the rate of 12.5 % as against made by the AO at the rate 25% of the bogus purchase. 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee engaged in the business of trading in Timber product. The AO received information from DGIT (Investigation ... return income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who restricted the disallowance at 12.5% of the bogus purchases by observing in para as under: - “5.11 Considering the totality of the facts before me, as well as the judicial opinion available, I am inclined to agree

ITO - 19 (2)(3), Mumbai vs. Mehta Construction, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6994/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: PendingITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhआयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 6993/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Income Tax Officer, Mahavir Pukhraj Chhajed Ward 19(2)(3), Room 44, Bhagirathi Bhuvan, 1 St बनाम/ No.218, 2Nd Floor, Matru Panjarapole Lane, Mandir, Tardeo, Mumbai-400 004 Vs. Mumbai-400 007 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Afhpc4937L आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 6994/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Income Tax Officer, Mahavir Pukhraj Chhajed Ward 19(2)(3), Room Room No.7, 1St Floor, Bhanji बनाम/ No.218, 2Nd Floor, Matru Building, 4Th Kumbharwada Mandir, Tardeo, Lane, Mumbai-400 004 Vs. Mumbai-400 007 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaafm1681R अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, Dr प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : None ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19.12.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2019

For Appellant: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, DRFor Respondent: None

ITA 6993/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: PendingITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

order of CIT(A) confirming the action made by the AO by applying the profit rate at the rate of 12.5% of the bogus purchases. The facts and circumstances are exactly identical in both these appeals in ITA Nos. 6993 & 6994/Mum/2018 except quantum, hence, we will take the facts from ... return income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who restricted the disallowance at 12.5% of the bogus purchases by observing in para as under: - “7.8 Coming to the addition made, the Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad 'C' Bench in the case of Vijay Proteins

ITO - 19 (2)(3), Mumbai vs. Mehta Construction, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

For Appellant: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, DRFor Respondent: None

ITA 6992/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

ITO 21 (1)(3), Mumbai vs. Chintamani'S Nx, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhआयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 6992/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) The Income Tax Officer Chintamani’S Nx Ward 21(1)(3) 106, First Floor, Piramal बनाम/ 2&3 Radhe Gopal Ind. Estate, Chambers, Parel, Mumbai-12 Senapati Bapat Marg, Vs. Dadar(W), Mumbai-400 028 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aadfc1379B अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, Dr प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Ramesh K. Chheda, Ar ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19.12.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, DRFor Respondent: Shri Ramesh K. Chheda, AR

Section 131Section 143(3)

restricting the addition of profit rate at the rate of 12.5% as against made by the AO at the rate 25% of the bogus purchases. 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee engaged in the business of trading of Readymade Garment. The AO received information from DGIT (Investigation ... preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who restricted the disallowance at 12.5% as against made by the AO at the rate 25% of the bogus purchases by observing in para 6 as under: - “6. Ground No.1 After non availability of parties in 133(6) inquiry (9 parties) assessee was asked

ITO 17 (2)(5), Mumbai vs. Palam Stove Industries, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6990/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhआयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 6990/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 6989/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) The Income Officer Palam Stove Industries Ward 17(2)(5) 2Nd Floor, Shirin Mansion 14, बनाम/ Room No. 123A, 1St Floor, Kolsa Cross Lane, Phydhonie, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai-400 003 Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaafp1331M अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, Dr प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : None ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19.12.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R महावीर ससुंह, न्याययक सदस्य/ Per Mahavir Singh, Jm: These Appeals Of The Revenue Are Arising Out Of The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-58, Mumbai [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal Nos. Cit(A)-58, Mumbai/10328 & 10327/2017-18 Even Dated 28-09-2018. The Assessments Were 2 | P A G E

For Appellant: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, DRFor Respondent: None

ITA 6989/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

order of CIT(A) restricting the addition made by the AO by applying the profit rate at the rate of 8.5 % of the bogus purchases. The facts and circumstances are exactly identical in both the assessment years i.e. AYs 2009-10 & 2010-11 except quantum, hence, we will take ... return income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who restricted the disallowance at 8.5% of the bogus purchases by observing in para as under: - “5. Ground 2 to 4 are identical in nature to grounds 2 and 3 adjudicated in appellate order

ITO 17 (2)(5), Mumbai vs. Palam Stove Industries, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

For Appellant: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, DRFor Respondent: None

ITA 6988/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

ITO 26 (2)(4), Mumbai vs. Prime Steel, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhआयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 6988/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Income Tax Officer Prime Steel Ward 26(2)(4) 3-B/26-A, Gafoor Khan Room No. 511, 5Th Floor, C- Estate, L.B.S. Marg, Kurla बनाम/ 11, Bandra Kurla Complex, (West), Mumbai-400 070 Vs. Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaifp1056B अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, Dr प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : None ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19.12.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, DRFor Respondent: None

ITA 6987/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

order of CIT(A) restricting the addition made of the AO by applying the profit rate at the rate of 12.5% of the bogus purchases. For this Revenue has raised following ground: - “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... erred in restricting the disallowance to 12.5% of the total amount of bogus purchase transaction instead of 100% of the total amount of bogus purchase made by the AO.” 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee engaged in the business of reseller in M.S. Sheet, Angle, Channels

ITO - 26 (2)(4, Mumbai vs. Power Hydraulic & Equipments, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhआयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 6987/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Income Tax Officer Power Hydraulic & Equipments Ward 26(2)(4), Room No. Gala No.16, Cresent Indl. Co- बनाम/ 511, 5Th Floor,, C-11, Bandra Premises Ltd. R.C. Layalika Kurla Complex, Bandra Street, Kherani Road, Vs. (East), Mumbai-400 051 Sakinaka,Mumbai-400 072 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aalfp8380M अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, Dr प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : None ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19.12.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, DRFor Respondent: None

ITA 6879/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) restricting the addition made of the AO by applying the profit rate at 16% of the bogus purchase. For this Revenue has raised following ground: - “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... erred in restricting the disallowance to 16% of the total amount of bogus purchases transaction instead of 25% of the total amount of bogus purchased made by the AO.” 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee engaged in the business of manufacturing of Hydraulic Equipments & parts. The AO received

ITO 27 (3)(5), Mumbai vs. Vrajlal Manilal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhआयकर अपील सुं./ Ita Nos. 6879/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Income Tax Officer Shri Vrajlal Manilal Shah Ward 27(3)(5) 37, Vadhani Industrial Esate, Room No. 428, 4Th Floor, L.B.S. Road, Opp. Shreyas बनाम/ Tower No.6, Vashi Railway Cinema, Ghatkopar (W), Vs. Station Complex, Vashi, Mumbai-400 086 Navi Mumbai-400 703 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Agps2788D

For Appellant: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, DRFor Respondent: Ms Dinkle Hariya, AR

ITA 6802/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

order of CIT(A) restricting the addition made by the AO by applying the profit rate at the rate of 12.5 % of the bogus purchases. 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee engaged in the business of manufacturing of Vaccum Forming/ Termo Forming of Plastic items. The AO received ... return income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who restricted the disallowance at 12.5% of the bogus purchases by observing in para as under: - “6. In view of the above discussed factual matric and precedents, I am of the view that estimation

ACIT-17, Mumbai vs. Akbar Abdul Ali, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm A.C.I.T.-17(1), Mumbai Vs. Akbar Abdul Ali, Room No. 117, Aayakar Faiz & Co., Unit No. 5, Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Alahibaug, 75, A.R. Street, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400009. Pan/Gir No.Aabpa 6866 F (Appellant) .. (Respondent)