← 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

Empower India Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(1), Mumbai

ITA 5207/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सुं/ Ita No. 3205/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) आयकर अपील सुं/ Ita No. 5584/Mum/2017 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, ……………. Appellant Central Circle 2(2), Room No. 806, 8Th Floor, / अपीलाथी Old Cgo Annex Bldg, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 V/S M/S Empower India Ltd. 25/25A, 327, Nawab Building, 2Nd Floor, …………….Respondent Mumbai-400 001 / प्रत्यथााी स्थायी लेखा िं /Pan – Aaach3967N आयकर अपील सुं/ Ita No. 5207/Mum/2017 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2011-12) M/S Empower India Ltd. 25/25A, 327, Nawab Building, 2Nd Floor, ……………. Appellant Mumbai-400 001 / अपीलाथी स्थायी लेखा िं /Pan – Aaach3967N V/S The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Room No. 806, 8Th Floor, …………….Respondent Old Cgo Annex Bldg, M.K. Road, / प्रत्यथााी Mumbai-400 020 5584 & 5207/Mum/2017 2 | P A G E

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy, DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 153C

completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act and computed 5584 & 5207/Mum/2017 4 | P a g e commission of bogus purchases contending that the assessee has earned commission of ₹ 97,98,271/- on these transactions, which is not reported in the book of accounts. Therefore, this commission

Shri Sandeepkumar S. Chandak, Surendranagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, S.K. Ward-1, Himatnagar

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3024/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Oct 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)

facts as enumerated below: i. There was the information received from the Maharashtra sales tax department that the assessee during the year has made bogus purchases from the parties as mentioned above amounting to Rs. 55,61,085.00 only. ii. Notices were issued under section 133(6) to the parties ... were duly accepted by the AO during the assessment proceedings. As such, had there been purchases from the non- existent parties or representing the bogus purchases, the AO was empowered to reject the books of accounts but he has not done so. 7. However, the Ld.CIT (A) disagreed with

Shri Milind M Mestry, Mumbai vs. ITO WD-4(2), Thane

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5948/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Milind M Mestry, Prop: M/S.Harsh Metals, Vs. Gala No.2, Rajprabha Industrial Income Tax Officer, Estate-3, Naikpada, Ward-4(2), Vasai Road (E), Thane [Pan : Afupm0879A] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri R.Bhoopathi, DR
Section 271(1)Section 69C

before the ld CIT(A) to attend the hearing the appeal was dismissed ex-parte. In our opinion even in the case of bogus purchases where the sales are not disputed by the AO, 100% is excessive and unreasonable in view of the nature of business of the assessee ... profit in that line of assessee. However we certainly feel that some estimated profit on the said bogus purchases has to be brought to tax as the AO has not disputed the corresponding sales. In our view it would be reasonable and fair if 6% is applied on the said

ITO 21 (2)(5), Mumbai vs. Prasad Engineering Works, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5901/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148(2)Section 69C

only issue raised by the Revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) restricting the addition to 25% of the bogus purchases as against the 100% disallowance made by the AO. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 29.09.2009 declaring ... After hearing the Ld. D.R. and perusing the material on record, we observe that in this case undoubtedly the assessee has indulged in bogus purchases from four parties aggregating to Rs.4,21,304/-. Though the assessee filed various evidences in support of the said purchases, however, the AO could

ITO -WD- 3(4), Kalyan vs. Srushti Enterprises, Dombivali

ITA 5103/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2009-10 M/S.Srushti Enterprises, Income Tax Officer, B-8, Tridev Chs Ltd., Vs. Ward-3(4), Rh-84, Midc, Kalyan (W) Dombivali (E) Mumbai [Pan : Ablfs0060L] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. P.Daniel, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.Bhoopathi, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 44A

Subsequently, information was received from Sales Tax Department through the DGIT(Inv.), Pune, that the assessee was one of the beneficiaries, who had obtained bogus purchase bills from the alleged Hawala dealers. As a result , the case of the assessee was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act after recording ... before the AO that it had sold the materials purchased from the alleged bogus suppliers to its customers and therefore there cannot be any bogus purchases as alleged as the stocks were procured from the suppliers and supplied to the customers. Finally the bAO treated the said purchases

Kolshet Ispat Udyog Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT. Circle- 1, Thane

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

ITA 5102/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

against the reopening of assessment under section 147 and the second is on merit against the confirming Rs.17,37,717/- being 12.5% of the bogus purchases to the income of the assessee by Ld. CIT(A). 3. At the time of hearing, the Ld. A.R. did not press the legal ... payments through banking channel before the AO. However, the AO not finding the contentions of the assessee as tenable estimated the income on bogus purchases at Rs.17,37,717/- being 12.5% of bogus purchases and added the same to the income of the assessee by following the decision

ITO, WD-3(2), Kalyan vs. Tarun Punshi Gosar HUF, Dombivali

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5095/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Gudu, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 148

deletion of addition to the extent of Rs. 74,460/- as against addition of Rs. 3,63,815/- made by the Assessing Officer towards bogus purchases. 2. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the return of income on 31.08.2011 declaring income of Rs.4,68,060/- which ... Punshi Gosar HUF 4. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record, we observe that in this case the addition for bogus purchase was made to the tune of Rs.3,63,815/- whereas Ld. CIT(A) sustained addition to the tune of Rs.2,14,895/- which means

Manju Devi Baid, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-37(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 394/KOL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz & Hz)

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries taken from one Shri Praven Assessment Years: 2009-2010 & 2010-2011 Manju Devi Baid Kumar Jain for bogus purchases of Rs.3,90,665/- and Rs.3,22,750/- in A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively. Accordingly notices under section 148 were issued ... pointed out that the assessments for both the years under consideration were reopened by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the alleged bogus purchases made by the assessee from Shri Praven Kumar Jain. She contended that no addition on account of such alleged bogus purchases was made

Manju Devi Baid, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-37(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 393/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz & Hz)

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries taken from one Shri Praven Assessment Years: 2009-2010 & 2010-2011 Manju Devi Baid Kumar Jain for bogus purchases of Rs.3,90,665/- and Rs.3,22,750/- in A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively. Accordingly notices under section 148 were issued ... pointed out that the assessments for both the years under consideration were reopened by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the alleged bogus purchases made by the assessee from Shri Praven Kumar Jain. She contended that no addition on account of such alleged bogus purchases was made

Timex Art Decor Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 11(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for Asst

ITA 7293/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(3)Section 147

only issue tat came up for our consideration from assessee as well as reveune appeal for both assessment years is addition towards alleged bogus purchases. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no need to reproduce grounds of appeals filed by the assessee as well ... 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. As per list of beneficiaries, the assessee is one of the beneficiary, who had taken accommodation bills

Mr Anil Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Offer Ward 1(1), Thane

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

ITA 4682/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 3

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 to reduce profits. As per list of beneficiaries, the assessee is one of the beneficiary, who had taken ... accommodation bills of bogus purchases from various parties as listed by the AO in his assessment order amounting to Rs. 1,00,04,992/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment has been completed u/s. 143(3).r.w.s. 147 of the I.T.Act, 1961 on 16/02/2015 and determined total

ACIT -27 (3), Mumbai vs. Vindeep Oiltex Exports, Mumbai

ITA 5694/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhanassistant Commissinoer Of M/S Vindeep Oiltex Exports Income Tax-27(3), A-67, M.I.D.C., Taloja, R. No. 423, 4Th Floor, Tower No.6 Navi Mumbai -410 208 Vs. Vashi Railway Station, Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400703

For Appellant: Smt. Jothilakshmi NayakFor Respondent: None
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40A(3)Section 69C

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition ofRs.13,83,200/- 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 ... erred in estimating the profit from Hawala purchases by disallowing only Rs.1,97,600/- being 12.5% of the bogus purchases as even the basic onus ofproducing delivery challans, transport bills etc. were not fulfilled by the assessee. (iii) The appellant prays that the order

ACIT- 27 (3), Mumbai vs. Tejas D. Maniar, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5693/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhanassistant Commissinoer Of Shri Tejas D. Maniar Income Tax-27(3),R. No. 423, Prop.M/S Unicare Medical System, 4Th Floor, Tower No.6, 205 2Nd Floor,Sahakar, R. N. Marg, Vs. Vashi Railway Station, Vashi, Hingwala Lane,Ghatkopar (East) Navi Mumbai – 400703 Mumbai – 400077

For Appellant: Smt. Jothilakshmi NayakFor Respondent: Shri Devendra Jain, Advocate
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.7,05,023/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases, without appreciating the fact that assessee had failed to produce bills, vouchers and other documentary evidences in support of his claim and without considering ... erred in estimating the profit from Hawala purchases by disallowing only Rs.1,03,477/- being 12.5% of the bogus purchases P a g e | 2 ITA No.5693/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2011-12 ACIT-27(3) Vs. Shri Tejas D. Maniar as even the basis onus of producing delivery challans, transport bills

Late Nirmala Mevalal Verma (Thru Legal Heir Rameshchandra M. Verma), Mumbai vs. ITO 21 (3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5510/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 5510/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year:2011-12) Late Nirmala Mevalal Verma Income Tax Officer, Ward-21(3)(4), Through Legal Heir Rameshchandra Mumbai (Respondent) M. Verma, Room No. 19, Mishra Vs. Chawl, Kajupada,Pipe Line, Jarimari, Kurla, Mumbai 400072 Apilaaqai- / Appellant) (P`%Yaqaai-/ Respondent) . स्थायीलेखा िं./Pan No. Aaapv5903B अपीलाथीकीओर े/ Appellant By : Shri Sameer G. Dalal, Ar प्रत्यथीकीओर े/ Respondent By : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari, Dr ुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 16-10-2019 घोषणाकीतारीख/ Date Of Pronouncement : 16-10-2019

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

this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO by treating the whole amount as bogus purchases. 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of plastic moulded items. The AO received information from DGIT ... facts of the case and argument of both the sides, that the CIT(A) has confirmed the addition by applying whole amount as bogus purchases. We noted from the facts of the case that the AO has not doubted the sales made by assessee out of these purchases alleged

ITO - 25(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Sonika P. Shetty, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5508/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 40A(3)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance @12,5% of the total amount of bogus purchase transaction @ 100% added by the AO in the assessment order. " 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... failed to appreciate the fact that provisions of section 40A(3) are attracted in the case of assessee and 100% bogus purchase amount is to be disallowed." 5. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact

Krutarth Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 28 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5499/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

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

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 to reduce or suppress profits. As per list of beneficiaries, the assessee is one of the beneficiary ... taken accommodation bills of bogus purchases from various parties as listed by the AO in his assessment order amounting to Rs. 3,04,013/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment has been completed u/s. 143(3).r.w.s. 147 of the I.T.Act, 1961 on 30/12/2015 and determined total

ITO - 24 (3)(3), Mumbai vs. Prashant Umesh Kalbaug, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5491/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 5491/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2009-10) Ito-24(3)(3), Mumbai. Vs. Shri Prashant Umesh Kalbaug 1/B, Dasmesh Colony, Four Bunglows, Andheri (W), Mumbai 400 058. . (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) (P`%Yaqaai-/ Respondent) स्थायीलेखा िं./Pan No. Acypk5369E अपीलाथी की ओर े/ Appellant By : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari प्रत्यथी की ओर े/ Respondent By : Shri Keshav B. Bhujle ुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 16-10-2019 घोषणा की तारीख/ Date Of Pronouncement : 16-10-2019 Aadosa/ O R D E R महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य/ Per Mahavir Singh, Jm: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-36, Mumbai Dated 27.04.2018 For Assessment Year 2009-10 Which In Turn Has Arisen From Order Of Assessing Officer Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) Dated 12.11.2014. The Only Issue On Merits, In This Appeal Of Revenue Is Against 2. The Order Of Cit(A) Restricting The Addition Of The Ao In Estimating The Profit Rate At 12.5% Of The Bogus Purchases.

For Appellant: Shri Akhtar H. AnsariFor Respondent: Shri Keshav B. Bhujle
Section 143(3)

Revenue is against 2. the order of CIT(A) restricting the addition of the AO in estimating the profit rate at 12.5% of the bogus purchases. 2 | P a g e Prashant Umesh Kalbaug Briefly stated facts are that the assessee engaged in the 3. business of manufacturing of award ... return income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who sustained the disallowance at 12.5% of the bogus purchases by observing in para 4.2.6 & 4.2.7 and by following the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High court in the case of CIT vs. Smith P. Seth

ITO - 27(2)(3), Navi Mumbai vs. Mukund J. Ghorpade, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5490/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 5490/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year:2009-10) The Income Tax Officer Shri Mukund J Ghorpade Ward 27(2)(3) A/25/28 Ambika Siddhi Golibar Vs. Mumbai Road Jagdusha Nagar Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai (P`%Yaqaai-/ Respondent) . Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायीलेखा िं./Pan No. Acepg8685R अपीलाथी की ओर े/ Appellant By : Shri Akhtar H Ansari, Dr प्रत्यथी की ओर े/ Respondent By : Shri Jayant Bhatt, Ar ुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 16-10-2019 घोषणा की तारीख/ Date Of Pronouncement : 16-10-2019 Aadosa/ O R D E R महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य/ Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Akhtar H Ansari, DRFor Respondent: Shri Jayant Bhatt, AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

assessee is against the order of CIT(A) restricting the addition of the AO in estimating the profit rate at 12.5% of the bogus purchases. 3. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee engaged in the business of printing of advertising materials. The AO received information from DGIT (Investigation ... return income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who sustained the disallowance at 12.5% of the bogus purchases by observing in para 5.3.7 as under: - “5.3.7 In view of the above discussed factual matrix and precedents, I am of the view that estimation

ITO - 24 (3)(5), Mumbai vs. Rajnish Madan Mehra, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5488/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

Section 143(3)Section 147

case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in restricting the disallowance made by the AO to only 12.5% of the total bogus purchases of Rs. 472304 notwithstanding that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the purchases, and could not produce/furnish the supplier parties/quantity wise description ... 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 to reduce or suppress profits. As per list of beneficiaries, the assessee is one of the beneficiary

ACIT Circle 27(2), Mumbai vs. Meenaxi Dilip Kothari, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5485/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaa.Y : 2011-12 : Meenaxi Kothari Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income 204, Neelkanth Royale, Joshi Lane, Tax-22(1), Mumbai. (Respondent) Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai 400 077. Pan : Aahpk2324E (Appellant) A.Y : 2011-12 :

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh K. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69C

Hence, we estimate the profit at the rate of 4 | P a g e ITA Nos. 5016 & 5485/Mum/2018 Meenaxi Kothari 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases and direct the AO accordingly. This issue of the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. 6. The next issue in Revenue’s appeal ... 5485/Mum/2018 is as regards to the order of CIT(A) restricting the addition made by the AO by treating the same as bogus purchases. 7. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of manufacturing electronic motion control devices. The AO received information