“bogus purchases”

ITO 27 (3)(5), Mumbai vs. Vijay H. Gandhi, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.51,677/- and Rs.1,30,332/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases and on account of cash payment u/ s. 69C, without appreciating the fact that the assessee had failed to produce bills, vouchers and other documentary evidences ... Ld.CIT(A) erred in estimating the profit from Hawala purchases by disallowing only Rs.2,58,383/- and Rs.28,618/- being 12.5% of the bogus purchases as even the basic onus of producing delivery challans, transportation details etc. were not fulfilled by the assessee? 2. None has appeared for assessee

ITO 27(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Atul V. Lotia, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Appeal No.CIT(A)- 2 Atul V. Lotia Assessment Year-2010-11 25/IT-807/2015-16/195 dated 05/07/2018 qua deletion of certain additions on account of alleged bogus purchases. 2. None has appeared for assessee and no valid adjournment application is on record. Left with no option, we proceed to dispose-off the appeal ... Rs.33.42 Lacs filed by the assessee on 11/10/2010 was reduced to Rs.24.39 Lacs on account of addition of Rs.9.01 Lacs on account of alleged bogus purchases. 3.2 Pursuant to receipt of certain information from the DGIT (Inv.) wing, Mumbai/Sales Tax Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, it transpired that the assessee stood

DCIT, Circle- I, Thane vs. Daniel Joseph Britto, Thane

Appeal stands dismissed whereas the cross-objections stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Mumbai [in short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Appeal No.771/2014- 15 dated 06/07/2018 qua certain relief provided to the assessee on account of alleged bogus purchases. The assessee has also filed cross-objections against the same and plead for further relief in the matter. The registry has noted a delay ... consideration u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 31/10/2014 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.44.54 Lacs, after sole addition of alleged bogus purchases for Rs.10.43 Lacs as against returned income of Rs.34.11 Lacs filed by the assessee on 27/06/2013. C.O No. 241/Mum/2019 Daniel Joseph Britto Assessment Year

ITO 19(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Atish Mafatlal Nahar, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N K Protein Ltd. dated 16.01.2017, which is on the similar issue of bogus purchases and when the apex court order was already the law of the land when the Ld. Commissioner of Income tax(Appeals) has pronounced its order ... evident from ground of appeal, the only issue under appeal is addition on account of alleged bogus purchases. 2.1 Facts on record would reveal that the assessee being resident individual stated to be carrying out its business under proprietary concern namely M/s. Toys Center, was assessed for impugned

Mr.Purvesh D Zaveri, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(2)(5), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

No.CIT(A)- 2 Purvesh D. Zaveri Assessment Year-2011-12 6/IT-66/2059/2017-18 dated 06/07/2018 qua confirmation of addition of Rs.3.29 lakhs on account of alleged bogus purchases. 2. None has appeared for assessee and no valid adjournment application is on record. Left with no option, we proceed to dispose ... transactions to factorize for profit earned by assessee against possible purchase of material in the grey market and undue benefit of VAT against such bogus purchases. Keeping in view Gross Profit Rate of more 4 Purvesh D. Zaveri Assessment Year-2011-12 than 12% reflected by the assessee, we estimate

Kailash Ghewarchand Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya: A.Y : 2009-10

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 20.04.2018 pertaining to assessment year 2009-10. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee in this case ... ferrous metals. 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 payments were made through banking channel. However, the suppliers were not produced before the Assessing Officer. Sales in this

Mini Diamonds (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 5 (2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

common issue raised by the assessee in all these appeals is against the confirmation of addition to the tune of 8% of the alleged bogus purchases by the learned CIT(A) as against the addition made by the AO @12.5% of the bogus purchases. 3. Brief facts of the case ... concluded that all these purchases from these parties were bogus and applied a rate of 12.5% to bring the profit element on the said bogus purchases to tax resulting into addition

Mini Diamonds (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 5(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

common issue raised by the assessee in all these appeals is against the confirmation of addition to the tune of 8% of the alleged bogus purchases by the learned CIT(A) as against the addition made by the AO @12.5% of the bogus purchases. 3. Brief facts of the case ... concluded that all these purchases from these parties were bogus and applied a rate of 12.5% to bring the profit element on the said bogus purchases to tax resulting into addition

Mini Diamonds (India) Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 5(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

common issue raised by the assessee in all these appeals is against the confirmation of addition to the tune of 8% of the alleged bogus purchases by the learned CIT(A) as against the addition made by the AO @12.5% of the bogus purchases. 3. Brief facts of the case ... concluded that all these purchases from these parties were bogus and applied a rate of 12.5% to bring the profit element on the said bogus purchases to tax resulting into addition

Amar Diamond Tools, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 1(1), Thane

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am)

both the appeals the assessee is aggrieved that learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining 12.5% disallowance out of bogus purchases. 3. Brief facts are that the assessee is engaged in manufacturing and trading in industrial tools. The assessment was reopened pursuant to search action in the Jain group, wherein ... that in this case the sales have not been doubted. It is settled law that when sales are not doubted, hundred percent disallowance for bogus purchase cannot be done. The rationale being no sales is possible without actual purchases. This proposition is supported from honourable jurisdictional High Court decision

Western India Marine Mills & Engineers, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 17(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am)

other material handling equipment. 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 in this case were not doubted. 4. The income tax officer in this case has made 14.97% addition on account of bogus purchase resulting in disallowance of Rs. 6,25,985 . Upon assessee’s appeal Id CIT- A confirmed the same. 2 Western India Marine Mills & Engineers 5. Against

Kirtikumar Shantilal Chandan, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhankirtikumar Shantilal Chandan, Ito-19(2)(2) 59, Nanubhai Desai Road, 214, Matru Mandir, Vs. Shop No. 57C, Opp. Islampura Street, Mumbai - 400007 Mumbai – 400004 Pan – Aaapc9778R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Nimesh K. Chothani & Shri Lajari Oswal, A.Rs Respondent By: Shri K. Bhoopati, D.R Date Of Hearing: 14.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.11.2019 O R D E R Per Ravish Sood, Jm The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-29, Mumbai, Dated 06.05.2015, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O Under Sec.143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short „Act‟), Dated 26.03.2015. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order On The Following Grounds Of Appeal Before Us: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A)-29, Mumbai Erred In Not Treating The Reassessment Proceedings As Invalid & Bad In Law. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A)- 29, Mumbai Erred In Confirming The Additions Made By The Ld. Ao At Rs.1,10,695/- Being 12.5% Of Total Alleged Non- Genuine Purchases Of Rs.8,85,560/- In Spite Of The Fact That The Appellant Has Established That The Total Purchases Made Of Rs. 8,85,560/- Were Genuine Purchases.” 2. Briefly Stated, The Assessee Had E-Filed His Return Of Income For A.Y. 2009-10 On 17.09.2009, Declaring His Total Income At Rs.9,39,710/-. Return Of Income Filed By The Assessee

basis of the aforesaid facts, the A.O was of the view that the assessee with an intent to suppress his true profits had booked bogus purchases. Apart therefrom, it was observed by the A.O that the assessee could not place on record any documentary evidence which could have irrefutably substantiated ... case of the assessee before them, who was a trader, was to be worked out by bringing the G.P. rate of such bogus purchases at the same rate as that of other genuine purchases. We thus respectfully following the aforesaid judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court, therein direct

ITO -32(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Haribansh B. Gupta, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhanincome Tax Officer-32(1)(5) Shri Haribansh B. Gupta Room No.203, 2Nd Floor, C-11, B/11, Ramdeo Park Iiid, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Chandavarkar Lane, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Borivali (W), Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 066 Mumbai – 400 051 Pan – Aabpg8625N (Appellant) (Respondent)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition @12.5% to Rs.72,867/- on account of bogus purchases, without appreciating that the fact that the assessee has not produced any cogent evidence to substantiate that he had taken actual delivery of goods purchased ... ratio of the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of N.K Proteins Ltd. Wherein it was confirmed that in the event of bogus purchases, the addition on the P a g e | 2 ITA No.6413/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-32(1)(5) Vs. Shri Haribansh B.Gupta

ITO 29 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kuldeep Glass & Alluminium, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhanita Nos.6282 To 6284/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12) Income Tax Officer-29(2)(1) M/S Kuldeep Glass & Alluminium Bldg. No. C-10, 2Nd Floor, Shop No. 16, Hansa Villa, Room No.201, Pratyakshakar Opp. Vijay Nagar, Mulund (W) Vs. Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 080 Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400 051 Pan – Aaafk6708M (Appellant) (Respondent)

erred in restricting the addition of Rs. 1,85,30,373/- being 100% to Rs.23,16,297/- being 12.5% of bogus purchases from hawala parties to ignoring the fact that assessee had failed to produce the parties ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... erred in restricting the addition of Rs.1,85,30,373/- being 100% to Rs.23,16,297/- being 12.5% of bogus purchases in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.K. P a g e | 2 ITA Nos. 6282 to 6284/Mum/2018 A.Ys

I.T.O. - 31(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Jitendra S. Mamania, Mumbai

In the result, the impugned order is upheld and appeal of Revenue is dismissed sans merit

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri G. Manjunatha: A.Y : 2009-10

appearing on behalf of the assessee, at the outset, supported the order of CIT(A) in restricting the addition to 25% of the alleged bogus purchases. The learned AR submitted that in the assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer, without raising any doubt over the sales declared by the assessee, made addition ... entire 2 Jitendra S. Mamania purchases from suspicious dealers. The learned AR submitted that the Tribunal in various decisions has held that entire bogus purchases cannot be added where the sales of assessee have been accepted by the Department. The CIT(A) has restricted the addition