← 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

Devendra P.Sheth, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward- 33 (1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 6424/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma & Shri Vikas Awasthy

For Appellant: Shri Dharmil JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padampani Bora
Section 147

steel. Information was received by the Income Tax Department from the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra regarding assessee’s alleged indulgence in bogus purchases of iron and steel from hawala dealers. Consequently, the assessment proceedings for assessment year 2010-11 and 2011-12 were reopened under section 147 r.w.s ... Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). In reassessment proceedings for assessment year 2010-11, it was alleged that assessee has made bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.60,55,355/- from the following parties: S.No. Name FY Amount(Rs) 1. National Trading

Income Tax Officer, Ward- 25(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Tushar S. Kamdar, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 6251/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm I.T.O.-25(1)(5), Vs. Tushar S. Kamdar, Mumbai. Gala No.5, Makhanria Indl. Complex, Off Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093. Pan/Gir No.Aacpk 7699 B (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)

Tushar S. Kamdar engaged in taking accommodation entries of purchases. After making detailed enquiry, the A.O. estimated the profit @ 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases. By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the entire addition by relying on the order of the ITAT in assessee’s own case

Sanghavi Diamond Corporation, Mumbai vs. ITO -Ward- 23 (3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 5769/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm M/S Sanghvi Diamond Vs. I.T.O., Corporation, Ward-23(3)(2), Bw-5021, 5Th Floor, Bharat Mumbai. Diamond Bourse, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-51. Pan/Gir No.Aaafs 3251 M (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 132Section 143(3)

this appeal, the assessee is aggrieved for the addition upheld by the ld. CIT(A) to the extent of 3% of alleged bogus purchases. 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that the assessee is engaged in the business of import ... have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. With respect to issue regarding addition in respect of bogus purchases, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs M/s Mohommad Haji Adam & Co. in ITA No. 1004 of 2016 vide

ITO 29(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Ketan Dhirajlal Gada, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5560/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ram Lal Negi

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

erred in restricting the addition of Rs. 5,47,876/- being 30% of 18,24,292/- to Rs. 2,28,036 being 12.5% of bogus purchases from hawala parties to ignoring the fact that the alleged party was included in the list of suspicious and / or hawala dealers ... erred in restricting the addition of Rs. 5,47,876/- being 30% of 18,24,292/- to Rs. 2,28,036 being 12.5% of bogus purchases from hawala parties to ignoring the fact that the notice u/s 133(6) were returned un- served and the assessee was failed to produce

Income Tax Officer 29(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Smt.Seema R Singh, Mumbai

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

ITA 5531/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5531 & 5532/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12) बिधम/ Ito 29(3)(3) Smt. Seema R Singh Room No. 306, 3Rd Floor, A/18, Chandrakunj, Chs, Vs. 2Nd Floor, Near Railway Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Station, Vikhroli (W), Bandra (E) Mumbai. Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Avdps4533N (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. अपीलाथी ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Vinod Kumar, Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Piyush C Bolia, Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 28/11/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 10.12.2019

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar, DRFor Respondent: Shri Piyush C Bolia, AR
Section 143(1)Section 271Section 274

profit @ 12.5% on sales made by the assessee and made addition of Rs. 15,19,293/- on account of suppression of gross profit through bogus purchases. The A.O also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(c) of the Act by issue notice u/s 274 of the Act and levied penalty ... 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

Income Tax Officer-9(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Manish P. Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2397/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodito-19(2)(3) Vs. Manish P.Shah 2Nd Room No.218, Floor, C/O M/S. Microlink Matru Mandir Technologies, Office No.3, 3Rd 14Th Tardeo Road Floor, Mehta Mumbai-400 007 Mansion, Tribuvan Road, Off. Lamington Road Mumbai-400 004 Pan/Gir No.Aaeps4599J (Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 147

Court dated 10.01.2017 in the case of N. K. Proteins Ltd. wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed the entire addition on account of bogus purchase?" 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld, CIT(A) is justified in confirming ... DGIT, investigation, Mumbai, as per which, Sales Tax Authorities of Government of Maharashtra had taken actions against number of Hawala dealers, who had issued bogus purchase bills to various parties in Mumbai and other places. As per list of beneficiaries, the assessee is one of the beneficiary, who had taken

ACIT 6 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. Engineering & Chemical (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7203/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon’Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon’Bleasst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax V. M/S. Engineering & Chemical Range– 6(2)(2) (India) Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 504, 5Th Floor 10, Peninsula Centre Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road S.S. Rao Road Mumbai – 400 020 Off Ambedkar Road, Parel Mumbai – 400 012

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh
Section 271(1)(c)

circumstances of the case and in law, Id CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty ignoring that the information on account of bogus purchases is received from the external agency that the assessee had received accommodation entry. 3. Though the tax effect in this case ... appeal is filed against deletion of penalty of ₹.1,32,558/- levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the disallowance made towards bogus purchases. 4. We have heard the submissions and perused the grounds of appeal in this appeal. We find that the tax effect in this appeal

ITO 21 (2)(3), Mumbai vs. Mohd.Kaleem Majeed Khan, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6355/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm I.T.O.-21(2)(3) Vs. Shri Mohd. Kaleem Majeed Khan, Mumbai. Room No. 3, Chawl No. 3, Muncipal Chawl, Umar Rajjab Road, Opp. Rehman Masjid, Morland Road, Mumbai-400011. Pan/Gir No. Aacpk 4225 B (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

this case, we found that the penalty has been levied with respect to addition made by the A.O. on account of alleged bogus purchases by computing profit at 15%. By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty after observing as under: “9. I have carefully considered ... case, the AO has levied penalty of Rs. 66,916/- on account of an ad-hoc estimated addition at rate of 15% of alleged bogus purchases from four parties. The AO held that the appellant failed to produce the parties meaning thereby did not discharge its onus, hence mens

ITO 17 (2)(4), Mumbai vs. Nitin Nandkishor Bangad, Mumbai

In the result, both i.e. appeal of the revenue and cross objection

ITA 6250/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri Nitin Nandkishor 17(2)(4), Bangad, Mumbai. 59, Gaya Building, 109 Y.M. Road, Masjid Bunder, Mumbai-400003. Pan/Gir No.Abapb 4356 P (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

assessee and the revenue relate to the addition made by the A.O. and partly deleted by the ld. CIT(A) in respect of alleged bogus purchases. The A.O. has computed profit at 15.10% on the alleged bogus purchases and by the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition ... estimating income @ 5.25% of alleged bogus purchases. The precise finding of the ld. CIT(A) is at page No. 2 to 7 of his appellate order. 3. It was argued by the ld AR of the assessee that the tax effect of the revenue appeal is less than

Mr.Vishwanath Kantiprasad Chaudhary, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 17(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 5192/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharmavishwanath Kantiprasad Vs. I.T.O., Chaudhary, Ward 17(3)(5), B-96, 1St Floor,Mangaldas Mumbai. Market, Bldg. No. 2, 9, Mangaldas Road, Gopal Gali, Mumbai-400021 Pan/Gir No.Acgpc 5982 R (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: “1. CIT(A) is failed to appreciate change of nature of Business of assessee from
Section 143(3)

Sales Tax Department regarding assessee availing bogus bill. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish the specific details of bogus purchases. It is also conveyed that Sale Tax Department, Mumbai has detected Hawala Dealers indulging only in issuing bogus sales bills and following parties ... Vishwanath Kantiprasad Chaudhary Vs ITO satisfied with the assessee’s contention, the A.O. made addition @ 12.5% by estimating the G.P. on such bogus purchases. 3. By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the A.O., against which, the assessee is in further appeal before the ITAT

Sonal Parekh, Legal Heir of Late Shri Anupkumar Parekh, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 93/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148

entries, received from Maharashtra State Sales Tax department On verification of the data received ft Is found that the assessee has obtained entries of bogus purchases from the Hawala Dealers. During the F.Y. 2007-08 relevant to the A.Y, 2008-09 assessee has obtained accommodation entries of bogus purchases amounting ... these hawala operators. There should be some corroborative evidence apart from these details alone. Therefore to our mind, this cannot be treated as bogus purchases of the assessee and be not added to the total income. We allow this ground of appeal of the Asstt.Year 2008-09 and delete

Sonal Parekh, Legal Heir of Late Shri Anupkumar Parekh, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 91/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Dec 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148

entries, received from Maharashtra State Sales Tax department On verification of the data received ft Is found that the assessee has obtained entries of bogus purchases from the Hawala Dealers. During the F.Y. 2007-08 relevant to the A.Y, 2008-09 assessee has obtained accommodation entries of bogus purchases amounting ... these hawala operators. There should be some corroborative evidence apart from these details alone. Therefore to our mind, this cannot be treated as bogus purchases of the assessee and be not added to the total income. We allow this ground of appeal of the Asstt.Year 2008-09 and delete

Sonal Parekh, Legal Heir of Late Shri Anupkumar Parekh, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 92/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Waseem Ahmed Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148

entries, received from Maharashtra State Sales Tax department On verification of the data received ft Is found that the assessee has obtained entries of bogus purchases from the Hawala Dealers. During the F.Y. 2007-08 relevant to the A.Y, 2008-09 assessee has obtained accommodation entries of bogus purchases amounting ... these hawala operators. There should be some corroborative evidence apart from these details alone. Therefore to our mind, this cannot be treated as bogus purchases of the assessee and be not added to the total income. We allow this ground of appeal of the Asstt.Year 2008-09 and delete

Subhashish Dutta, Howrah vs. I.T.O., Ward-46(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1477/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz)] I.T.A. No. 1477/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Subhashish Dutta......................................…………………………...........................................Appellant 144/2, Madhusudan Paul Chowdhury Lane, Kadamtala, Howrah – 711 101. [Pan: Aeepd 0483 N] Vs Ito, Ward – 46(4), Kolkata...................……………………………………………….............Respondent 3, Govt. Place (West), Kolkata – 700 001. Appearances By: Smt. P. Shaw, Aca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Dhrubajyoti Roy, Jcit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 13, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 06, 2019 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 14, Kolkata Dated 19.03.2019 & The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relates To The Addition Of Rs. 1,47,525/- Made By The Ao & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) On Account Of The Alleged Bogus Purchase.

Section 133(6)

addition of Rs. 1,47,525/- made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of the alleged bogus purchase. 2. The assessee in the present case is an individual who filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 29.11.2014 declaring a total ... extent to the total income of the assessee. 3. The addition of Rs. 1,47,525/- made by the AO on account of alleged bogus purchases was challenged by the assessee in the appeal filed before the Ld. CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings before

ITO 33(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Kaushik S Vakharia, Mumbai

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

ITA 6533/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma

Section 143(3)

sustainable in law and facts. The saving on account of VAT and other incidental charges made by the appellant on the said bogus purchases can be brought to tax as additional profit. Keeping in view that totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the estimation made ... dated 29/05/2018, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) for restricting the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases by applying GP rate of 2.5% and giving further reduction on account of profit shown by the assessee. 7. In the result, both

ITO 33(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Kaushik S Vakharia, Mumbai

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

ITA 6531/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma

Section 143(3)

sustainable in law and facts. The saving on account of VAT and other incidental charges made by the appellant on the said bogus purchases can be brought to tax as additional profit. Keeping in view that totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the estimation made ... dated 29/05/2018, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) for restricting the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases by applying GP rate of 2.5% and giving further reduction on account of profit shown by the assessee. 7. In the result, both

Income Tax Officer 32(2)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Kawachi Group, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6526/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharmai.T.O.-32(2)(2), Vs. M/S Kawachi Group, Room No. 304, 3Rd Floor, 228/2Nd Flr, Neha Industrial C-11, Pratyakshakar Estate, Near Hyundai Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Service Station, Borivali-E- Complex, Bandra (E), 66. Mumbai-400051. Pan/Gir No.Aaahk 6370 B (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)

Group 3. In this appeal, the revenue is aggrieved by the action of the ld. CIT(A) for restricting the addition on account of bogus purchases to the extent of 12.5% in place of 100% addition made by the A.O. 4. I have gone through the orders of the authorities ... bogus in assessee’s income. By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to the extent of 12.5% of bogus purchases after having the following observation: “6.3.29 The facts in the present case are similar to the facts in the above mentioned case. In the present case

Income Tax Officer 23(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Suresh Harji Patel, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6525/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharmai.T.O.-22(3)(4), Vs. Shri Suresh Harji Patel, Mumbai. R.H.B.-15, Sector-8, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400708. Pan/Gir No.Aobpp 4275 M (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

record. 3. In this appeal, the revenue is aggrieved by the action of the ld. CIT(A) for restricting the addition on account of bogus purchases to 2 ITO Vs Shri Suresh Harji Patel the extent of 18% which was made by the A.O. at 25%. The facts in brief ... that the A.O. made addition on account of bogus purchases. After making enquiry, the A.O. added 25% of such bogus purchases in assessee’s income. 4. By the impugned order, the ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to the extent of 18% of bogus purchases after having the following observation

Income Tax Officer 33(1)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Chandan Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6524/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharmai.T.O.-33(1)(3), Vs. M/S Chandan Enterprises, Mumbai. Shop No. 17, Lalji Complex, Dahanukar Wadi, Kandivali (West), Mumbai-400067. Pan/Gir No.Aacfc 0879 M (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

record. 3. In this appeal, the revenue is aggrieved by the action of the ld. CIT(A) for restricting the addition on account of bogus purchases to the extent of 12.5% which was made by the A.O. at 100%. 2 ITO Vs M/s Chandan Enterprises 4. I have gone through ... made by AO of Rs.4,37,774 as “5. unexplained expenditure u/s 69C. Following are the details of parties from whom the assessee obtained bogus purchases: S. No. Name of the Dealers Amount 1 Dhaval Enterprises 1,22,456 2 Maruti Traders 2,888 3 Darshan Enterprises

ACIT- Circle 15 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. G-3 Motors Limited, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6518/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharmaa.C.I.T. Vs. M/S G-3 Motors Limited, Circle-15(1)(2), Plot No. D-175, Ttc Industrial Area, Mumbai. Midc Shiravane, Nerul, Navi Mumbai- 400705. Pan/Gir No.Aaccg 8148 E (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 145

appeal of the revenue deserves to be dismissed. 4. On merits, I found that the addition made by the A.O. on account of bogus purchases was deleted by the ld. CIT(A) by estimating profit @ 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases. The precise finding ... appellant company was asked to submit the details of purported purchases made and to show cause why the same should not be disallowed as bogus purchases. The appellant filed their reply stating that purchases were made from regular parties supported by proper bills and the accounting entries and the payments