← 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

Mr.Vipul Ashok Tibrewala, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 25(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 6953/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhआयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 6953/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2008-09) Mr. Vipul Ashok Tibrewala The Commissioner Of Income 6, Tibrewala House, J.B. Tax-53, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. बनाम/ Nagar, Andheri (E), Road, Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Mumbai-400 059 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aacpt3400B अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Modi, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Modi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

order of CIT(A) confirming the addition made by the AO by applying the profit rate at the rate of 25% of the bogus purchase. 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee engaged in the business of issuing accommodation bills. The AO received information from DGIT (Investigation ... higher side because the profit rate cannot be at 12.5%. Even the assessee has also paid the VAT element on these bogus purchases. Hence, I direct the AO to recompute the income after applying profit rate at the rate of 5% and compute

ITO 19 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Kheemaram K. Choudhary, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6948/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhआयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 6948/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) Income Tax Officer-19(2)(2) Shri Kheemaram K Choudhary Room No. 214, 2Nd Floor, Office No.16, 1St Floor, Haji बनाम/ Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Kasam Bldg. No.8, Durgadevi Mumbai-400 007 Street, Khumbharwada, Vs. Mumbai-400 004 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Afmpc7661N अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, Dr प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : None ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)

Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO by applying the profit rate at 12.5% of the bogus purchase. For this assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... directing the AO to allow set off of the Gross Profit already shown by the assessee from the net addition @12.5% on account of bogus purchases confirmed the Ld. CIT(A)? 2. The appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside

ACIT 21(3), Mumbai vs. Ms.Veena Vasant Shah (Prop.M/S.Bhagat Jewellers), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5889/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5889/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5886/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Mohammed RizwanFor Respondent: None
Section 143(1)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

estimated the gross profit on such alleged transaction @ 12.5% made by the assessee and made addition of Rs. 3,31,819/- on account of bogus purchase transaction. The A.O also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by issuing of notice ... appeal before us. 6. 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

ITO 33(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Jidtendra R. Sanghvi, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5867/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) & Shri S Rifaur Rahman (Am) Ito 33(2)(1), Vs Shri Jitendra R Sanghvi Pratyakshya Kar Bhawan, Prop M/S Sanghvi Enterprises Bandra Kurla Complex, F-504, Pushp Heritage Building Bandra (E), Dahanukarwadi, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400051 Mumbai 400 067 Pan : Belps7955A Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition of Rs2,26,304/-made in respect of bogus purchases to Rs.7,07,198/-especially when Ld. CIT(A) has clearly found that the assessee did not fully substantiate the claim of genuine purchases ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in determining the profit percentage at the rate of 8% of bogus purchases, while the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the purchase claimed.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee s a proprietor

ITO - 13(1)(2), Mumbai vs. United Asphalters Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5725/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5725/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) I.T.O. 13(1) (2), 2Nd Floor, United Asphalters Pvt. Ltd बिधम/ Room No. 225, Aaykar 3A/6 Majithia Nagar, S.V.Road, Kandivali (W), Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Vs. Mumbai-400067. 400025. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aaacu4547K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Mohammed Rizwan, Dr प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Shri Dhaval Shah, Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 12.12.2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 18.12.2019 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) -21 In Short Referred As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, Mumbai, Dated 29/06/2018 For Assessment Year (In Short Ay) 2009-10, Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Allowed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Penalty A.Y 2009-10 M/S. Unitd Asphalters 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 Mohammed RizwanFor Respondent: Shri Dhaval Shah, AR
Section 143(1)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 274Section 69C

above assessment A.O estimated the commission @ 1% on sales made by the assessee and made addition of Rs. 61,30,375/- on account of bogus purchase transaction u/s.69C of the Act. In the re- assessment the AO also made disallowance of Rs. 17,638/- on account of claim of depreciation ... 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

ITO 27 (1)(5), Mumbai vs. Jitendra Dalichand Shah HUF, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5661/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) & Shri S Rifaur Rahman (Am) Ito 27(1)(5), Vs Shri Jitendra Dalichand Shah 4Th Floor, Room No. 410, (Huf) Tower No. 6, Vashi 401, Nageshwar Krupa Garden Railway Station, Lane, Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Complex, Vashi, Mumbai 400 086 Navi Mumbai-400073. Pan : Aaahj2891F Appellant Respondednt

Section 14(3)Section 143(2)Section 148

case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.6,22,737/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases, without appreciating the fact that the assessee had failed to produce bills, vouchers and other documentary evidences in support of his claim and without ... estimating the profit from Hawala purchases by disallowing only 2 ITA 5661/Mum/2018 Jitendra D Shah HUF Rs.11,07,088/- being 8% of the bogus purchases as even the basic onus of producing transport bills, delivery challans etc. were not fulfilled by the assessee.” 2. Brief facts of the case

ITO - 21(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Aparna A. Hendre, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5225/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri S. Michael Jerald- Ld. DR
Section 2

Rs.42,296/- in respect of disallowance of Rs.68,640/- made in the quantum assessment order on account of bogus purchases. The stated penalty was imposed by Ld. Assessing Officer vide penalty order dated 20/08/2015 but the same was deleted by first appellate authority, finding merits in assessee’ submissions. Aggrieved ... Department of Revenue] and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The Ld. DR submitted that penalty was levied on account of alleged bogus purchases as per information received from Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra and therefore, the appeal would be covered by exception given in the circular. 3. Upon

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bansal Strips Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4470/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 147

bogus sales bills, and the assessee was found to be dealing with the concerns of Navneet Kumar Jain and Vaibhav Jain and made the bogus purchases during the year under consideration. Basing on that the learned Assessing Officer made the list of the transactions and firms operated by Navneet Kumar ... however drew inference that the assessee had taken bogus accommodation entries to the tune of Rs. 19,40,65,002/- in the shape of bogus purchases and therefore, by order dated 27/3/2015 passed under section 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) he disallowed

Sd Polyfilms Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 22(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4034/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68

provide to the clients? Answer. I provide all types of accommodation entries namely bogus share application money, share premium, share forfeiture, unsecured loans, bogus purchases, bogus sales and bogus advances against properties. Question 8. How do accommodation entry seeking entities and persons provide funds to you in lieu of entries ... subsequent transactions have been used for the purpose of providing accommodation entries namely bogus share application money, share premium, share forfeiture, unsecured loans, bogus purchases, bogus sales and bogus advances against properties to a large number of clients from time to time. I would like to narrate once again

Sh. Rajinder Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2293/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)

Hence, the said parties, payment of Rs.50,97,059/- is disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee on account of bogus purchases. The AR submitted invoices. As evident from this invoice, there is not TIN / PAN which also raises doubts about its authenticity. Further, there

ITO 6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Jainex Fire & Safety Systems P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7148/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar () & Shri Pawan Singh ()

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A) has erred in directing the penalty ignoring that the information on account of bogus purchases is received from the external agency that the assessee had received accommodation entry." 8 Though the tax effect in this case ... goods and that the assessee was one of such beneficiary of hawala purchases. The AO made 100% of the addition of alleged bogus purchases identified as non-genuine / bogus purchases. On appeal before ld CIT(A) the additions were sustained to the extent of 15% of alleged bogus purchases

Jinpal and Company, Mumbai vs. ITO 25 (2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6895/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhआयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 6894/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 6895/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) Jinpal & Company The Income Tax Officer, 4, Vasant Kunj, Bapubhai Ward 25(2)(4), Vashhi Road, Vile Parle Room No. 503, 5Th Floor, C- बनाम/ (West), Mumbai-400 056 10, Pratykshar Bhavan, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 051 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaafj4733F अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Dhipam Koyadia, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17.12.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R महावीर ससुंह, न्याययक सदस्य/ Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Dhipam Koyadia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

order of CIT(A) confirming the addition made by the AO by applying the profit rate at the rate of 12.5% of the bogus purchase. The facts and circumstances are exactly identical in both the assessment years i.e. AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12 except quantum, hence, we will take ... given facts of the case. Even in this case, the assessee has also paid the VAT element on these bogus purchases. Hence, I direct the AO to recompute the income after applying profit rate at the rate of 5% on these 5 | P a g e ITA Nos. 6894 & 6895/Mum/2018

Jinpal and Company, Mumbai vs. ITO 25 (2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6894/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhआयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 6894/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 6895/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) Jinpal & Company The Income Tax Officer, 4, Vasant Kunj, Bapubhai Ward 25(2)(4), Vashhi Road, Vile Parle Room No. 503, 5Th Floor, C- बनाम/ (West), Mumbai-400 056 10, Pratykshar Bhavan, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 051 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaafj4733F अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Dhipam Koyadia, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17.12.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R महावीर ससुंह, न्याययक सदस्य/ Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Dhipam Koyadia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

order of CIT(A) confirming the addition made by the AO by applying the profit rate at the rate of 12.5% of the bogus purchase. The facts and circumstances are exactly identical in both the assessment years i.e. AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12 except quantum, hence, we will take ... given facts of the case. Even in this case, the assessee has also paid the VAT element on these bogus purchases. Hence, I direct the AO to recompute the income after applying profit rate at the rate of 5% on these 5 | P a g e ITA Nos. 6894 & 6895/Mum/2018

Pushpa Nareshkumar Dhanania, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 17(2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 6883/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhआयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 6883/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) Pushpa N Dhanania The Income Tax Officer 24, Saraswati Sadan, 1 St Ward 17(2)(5) बनाम/ Floor, 113, Keshavji Naik 506, Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumba9-400 009 Road, Opp. Churchgate Vs. Railway Station Mumbai (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Adwpd7778D अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Haresh P. Shah, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17.12.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Haresh P. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

order of CIT(A) confirming the addition made by the AO by applying the profit rate at the rate of 12.5% of the bogus purchase. 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee engaged in the business of manufacturing of Trading in Pipe Fittings. The AO received information from DGIT ... higher side because the profit rate cannot be at 12.5%. Even the assessee has also paid the VAT element on these bogus purchases. Hence, I direct the AO to recompute the income after applying profit rate at the 6 | P a g e Pushpa N Dhanania rate

ITO 21 (2)(3), Mumbai vs. Mewar Ceramics, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6881/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhआयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 6881/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10) The Income Tax Officer Mewar Ceramics Ward 21(2)(3) E-Ii, 3/4, Mukund Nagar, बनाम/ Room No. 105, 1St Floor Near Pilla Bunglow, Bandra Piramal Chambers, Parel, Link Road, Dharavi, Mumbai- Vs. Mumbai-400 012 400 017 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aakfm9693B अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, Dr प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : None ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17.12.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty levied by AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the basis that the addition was made on account of bogus purchases thereby the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. For this, Revenue has raised the various grounds, which are argumentative in nature. 3. Brief facts ... from Sales Tax Authorities that the assessee was engaged in obtaining bogus bills without actually purchases and taking delivery of goods. The assessee made bogus purchases from Laxmi Trading Company amounting to ₹19,17,586/- and AO estimated the profit rate on such bogus purchases at 12.5% and made addition

ITO 33 (3)(3), Mumbai vs. Sarika Vishnuprasad Rai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6880/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhआयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 6880/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Income Tax Officer Smt. Sarika Vishnuprasad Rai Ward-33(3)(3), R.No. 603, 5104, Mercury, Evershine बनाम/ 6Th Floor, C-12, Pratyakshakar City, Thakur Village, Kandivali Bhavan, Bkc, (East), Kumbai-400 101 Vs. Mumbai-400 051 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Adxpr4306A अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, Dr प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : None ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17.12.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)

restricting the addition of profit rate at the rate of 12.5 % as against made by the AO at the rate 25.50% of the bogus purchases. For this assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... erred in randomly restricting the disallowance at 12.5% of the bogus purchases without any proper reason or logic? 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in giving the relief of 12.5% of the bogus purchases to the assessee

ITO 27 (3)(5), Mumbai vs. Vimlesh J. Doshi, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6877/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhआयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 6877/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 6878/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Income Tax Officer Shri Vimlesh J. Doshi Ward 27(3)(5), Unit No.119, Reena Complex, Room No. 428, 4Th Floor, Vidyavihar (W), बनाम/ Tower No.6, Vashi Railway Mumbai-400 086 Vs. Station Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Ahppd0604B अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, Dr प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : None ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17.12.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R महावीर ससुंह, न्याययक सदस्य/ Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 147

Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) restricting the addition made by applying the profit rate at the rate of 12.5% of the bogus purchases. The facts and circumstances are exactly identical in both the assessment years i.e. AYs 2010-11 and 2011-12 except quantum, hence, we will ... addition to 12.5% of ₹15,42,241/- as against 15% addition of ₹15,42,241/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases, without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to discharge the onus to establish the genuineness of the transactions and also failed to furnish

ITO -33 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rajesh C. Dixit, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6876/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhआयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 6876/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Income Tax Officer Rajesh C. Dixit Ward 33(3)(1), Shop No.8, Ground Floor, बनाम/ Room No.602, 6Th Floor, C-12 Shree Naman Plaza, S.V. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc, Road, Kandivali (W), Vs. Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 067 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aahpd3896J अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, Dr प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Nitesh Joshi, Ar ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17.12.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, DRFor Respondent: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AR
Section 143(3)

restricting the addition of profit rate at the rate of 10% as against made by the AO at the rate 25% of the bogus purchases. For this Revenue has raised following grounds: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... Mumbai erred in randomly restricting the disallowance made by AO to 10% of the bogus purchases without carrying out any investigation or proper examination of facts of the case. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in lase, the Ld. CIT(A), Mumbai erred

ACIT 27 (1), Mumbai vs. Ajit Prhlad Yelmar, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6875/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhआयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 6875/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2010-11) The Asst. Commissioner Of Shri Ajit Prahlad Yelmar Income Tax, Circle 27(1), Block No.5137, Bldg No.157, Room No. 408, 4Th Floor, Near Tilak Nagar, Chembur, बनाम/ Tower No.6, Vashi Railway Mumbai Vs. Station Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aaapy0329G अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, Dr प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : None ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17.12.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 147

this appeal of Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) restricting the addition made by applying the profit rate at 12.5% of the bogus purchases. For this assessee has raised following grounds: - “i. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred ... deleting the addition of Rs.14,03,713/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases, without appreciating the fact that the assessee had failed to produce bills, vouchers and other documentary evidences in support of his claim and without considering the latest Apex Court decision in the case

ITO - 19 (1)(3), Mumbai vs. Ghevarchand Sagarmal Sanghvi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6871/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhआयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 6871/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Income Tax Officer, Ghevarchand Sagarmal Sanghvi Ward 19(1)(3), Santosh Steel Corporation, बनाम/ Room No.220, 2Nd Floor, 4 Varsha, 2Nd Khetwadi Lane, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Near Alankar Cineman, Vs. Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai-400004 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Abnps8984P अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, Dr प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Chamaria, Ar ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17.12.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 17.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R महावीर ससुंह, न्याययक सदस्य/ Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, DRFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Chamaria, AR
Section 144Section 147

Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) restricting the addition made by AO by applying the profit rate at 12.5% of the bogus purchase and further allowing reduction on account of already declared profit from the GP restricted at 12.5%. For this Revenue has raised following grounds: - “1. Whether ... case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in restricting the addition @12.5% as against @15% made by AO on bogus purchases despite the fact the addition was made on basis of credible information received from DGIT(Inv.) based on information supplied from sales tax authorities? 2. Whether