← 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

Sharad Vrajlal Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO 17 (3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6096/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) Sharad Vrajlal Doshi Vs Ito 17(3)(3), Mumbai 51/57, Donald Street Damar Gally, Masjid Bunder Mumbai-400 009 Pan : Aacpd0897Q Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

record. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee furnished complete details of purchases and the sales made against the alleged bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer has rejected the books of account without mentioning specific reasons. The Assessing Officer made the disallowance of 12.5% of the alleged bogus ... purchases. The ld. AR of the assessee further submits that the addition sustained on account of alleged bogus purchases is on higher side. The ld. AR of 6 ITA 6096/Mum/2018 Sharad Vrajlal Doshi the assessee further submits that after addition sustained by ld. CIT(A), the GP of assessee would

Mehta Trading Corporation, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 24 (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5439/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) M/S Mehta Trading Vs Acit – 24(2), Mumbai Corporation, R 141F, Grd P 139/7, Vrindawan Chawl Lakdi Bunder Road, Darukhana, Mazgaon, Mumbai-400 010 Pan : Aaafm2829F Appellant Respondednt

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Income Tax (Appeal) - 36, Mumbai [hereinafter referred as CIT(A)] erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 9,97,9427- being 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 79,83,9427- made by the Appellant. The Appellant submits that (i) it has actually bought the materials (ii) made the payment ... alternative and without prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition 9,97,9427- being 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases 2 ITA 5439/Mum/2018 Mehta Trading Corporation made by the Appellant without appreciating the fact that the Appellant itself has declared gross profit @ 11.44% on the alleged

Chimanalal K. Bokadia, Mumbai vs. ITO -WD- 19 (1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5433/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Pawan Singh (Jm) Shri Chimanlal K Bokadia Vs Ito, Wd.(19)(1)(3), Mumbai M/S Ishwar Steel Corporation 15, Ardeshir Dady Cross Lane, Opp. Madhav Baug, Cp Tank, Mumbai 400 004 Pan : Ajepb4618C Appellant Respondednt

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

assessment order are not genuine and not made from them but from other sources (b) estimating rate of profit at 12.5% on alleged bogus purchases over and above gross profit declared of 3.87% by the appellant on such purchases.. (c) confirming addition of Rs. 12,80,674/- made ... impugned purchases. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee furnished complete details of purchases and the sales made against the alleged bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer made the disallowance of 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases. The ld. AR of the assessee further submits that assessee

Ritesh Rajmal, Mumbai vs. ITO - WD- 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5431/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaa.Y : 2009-10 :

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari
Section 143(3)

estimating the profit rate @ 10% as against the estimation by the Assessing 2 Ritesh Rajmal Sanghvi Officer @ 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases. For this, the assessee has raised the following grounds on merit: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned ... assessment order are not genuine and not made from them but from other sources. (b) estimating rate of profit at 10% on alleged bogus purchases over and above gross profit declared of 7.59% by the appellant on such purchases. (c) confirming addition of Rs.898137/- made by the Assessing Officer

Delux Steel, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5430/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaa.Y : 2010-11 :

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari
Section 143(3)

against the order of CIT(A) estimating the profit rate @ 10% as against the estimation by the Assessing Officer @ 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases. For this, the assessee has raised the following grounds on merit: 2 M/s. Delux Steel Impex “1. On the facts and in the circumstances ... assessment order are not genuine and not made from them but from other sources. (b) estimating rate of profit at 10% on alleged bogus purchases over and above gross profit declared of 11.25% by the appellant on such purchases. (c) confirming addition of Rs.566481/- made by the Assessing Officer

ITO -WD- 2(1), Thane vs. Arvind Ramgopal Saraf, Bhayander

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5429/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaa.Y : 2009-10 :

For Appellant: Shri Akhtar H. AnsariFor Respondent: Shri Radhakant Saraf
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

this appeal of Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) restricting the addition by applying profit rate of 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases. For this, Revenue has raised the following grounds: - “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... none of the parties responded. According to the Assessing Officer, assessee is unable to prove these purchases, hence he added the entire alleged bogus purchases to the returned income of the assessee, amounting to Rs.4,06,978/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before

ITO -WD- 3 (3)Kalyan, Kalyan vs. Murlidhar N. Iyengar, Dombivali

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5427/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaa.Y : 2010-11 :

For Appellant: Shri Akhtar H. AnsariFor Respondent: Shri Vivek S. Dagonkar
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

this appeal of Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) restricting the addition by applying profit rate of 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases. For this, Revenue has raised the following grounds: - 2 Murlidhar N. Iyengar ITA 5427/MUM/2018 “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ... respond to the said notice. According to the Assessing Officer, assessee is unable to prove these purchases, hence he added the entire alleged bogus purchases to the returned income of the assessee, amounting to Rs.1,80,000/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before

ITO, Ward- 3 (5), Kalyan vs. Labco Fine Chemicals, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5423/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaito, Ward-3(5) Vs. Labco Fine Chemicals 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion Mahvir Prabhu Chowk Murbad Road Bazar Peth, Kalyan Kalyan(W)-421 301 Thane

Section 144Section 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 suppres 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. 3,06,779/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment has been completed u/s. 144.r.w.s. 147 of the I.T.Act, 1961 on 3 Labco Fine Chemicals 10/02/2015

M/S.Aquapure Agencies, Mumbai vs. ITO 28(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5408/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

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. 4,74,367/-. 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 25/03/2015 and determined total

ITO WD- 2(4), Thane vs. Parth Traders, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5399/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhincome-Tax Officer Vs Parth Traders Ward 2(4), Mumbai 63, Mira Co-Op Housing Society Near Asmita Super Market, Maya Nagar, Mira Road (E), Thane 401 107 Pan : Aabfp4130F Appellant Respondednt

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

material 4 ITA 5399/Mum/2018 before him and after referring the report of the investigation of Sales Tax authorities added the entire amount of alleged bogus purchases to the total income amounting to Rs.40,70,920. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A), relying upon a plethora of judgements, restricted the addition ... extent of 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the revenue has filed the present appeal before us. 4. None appeared on behalf of the assessee before us despite service of notice through registered post. Therefore, we heard the ld. Departmental Representative

Eshita Rubber Pvt. Ltd., Thane vs. ITO -WD 1 (2), Thane

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 5393/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri Dharan V. Gandhi-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. K.Jothilakshmi Nayak- Ld. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

erred in sustaining the entire disallowance of Purchase of Rs. 8,20,070/- for A.Y. 2010-11 which was considered as alleged Bogus Purchase by the Ld. ITO. 2. On the facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in adopting ... erred in not considering the fact the Ld. ITO has accepted the sales corresponding to the alleged bogus purchases and therefore entire purchases could not be treated as bogus. Reliance can be placed on [2017] 83 taxmann.com 63 (Mumbai - Trib) ITO vs. Deepak Khusaldas Mehta and [2017] 84 taxmann.com

Chhagnaram Gomaji Parmar, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, Ground No.2 of the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5381/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhshri Chhagnaram Gomaji Parmar, Ito - 19(1)(3) Room No. 39, 3Rd Floor, R.No. 223, Matru Mandir, Kesuri House 68/74, Vs. Tardeo, Sant Sena Maharaj Marg, Mumbai-400007. Mumbai-400004. Pan: Aowpp2668B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 254(1)

sustaining the addition made by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 19(1)(3), Mumbai, treating part of our genuine bona fide purchases as bogus purchases without appreciating that all of our purchases are genuine and bona fide real purchases and that the appellant has adduced various evidences, none of which ... genuine/alleged hawala purchases by taking view that it would be just fair and proper to make addition of profit element embedded in such bogus purchase, in the assessment order dated 29.02.2016 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 147. 4. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the action

ACIT Circle 22(1), Mumbai vs. Bharoomal & Co, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5356/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaacit,Circle-22(1) Vs. Bharoomal & Co. Room No.322, 3Rd Floor 1 & 2, Narsing Co-Op. Soc. 4Th Road, Khar (West) Income Tax Office Piramal Chambers,Lalbaug Mumbai-400 052 Parel, Mumbai-400 012

Section 143(3)Section 147

circumstances of the case and in /aw the ld. CIT(A) is correct in restricting the disallowance @ 12.5% on account of bogus purchases against 100% made by AO ignoring the latest decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s N.K.Protiens Ltd Vs CIT No. 769 of 2017 dated ... wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided the issue of bogus purchases with a direction of making addition amounting to entire bogus purchase as assessee's income. " 2 Bharoomal & Co. 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in low, the ld. CIT(A) failed

ACIT - 27 (3), Mumbai vs. Sameer V. Juthani, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2011-

ITA 5691/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Sameer V. Juthani, Income Tax – 27(3), 3, Satyam Industrial Estate, R. No. 423, 4Th Floor, Off B.K.S.D. Marg, Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Vs. Govandi, Deonar, Station, Vashi, Mumbai - 400088 Navi Mumbai - 400703 Pan: Aaapj8632K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah (CA)For Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi (DR)
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

order before the Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. CIT (A) after hearing the assessee restricted the addition to 12.5% of the total amount of bogus purchases. Against the said findings, the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The revenue has challenged the impugned order passed ... erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,34,676/- 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

ITO - 27 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. Anil Kumar Jain & Co., Mumbai

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

ITA 5690/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Ito-27(1)(1), M/S Anil Kumar Jain & Co. Tower No. 6, 4Th Floor, 190/5283, Sanmati Pant Room No. 406, Vashi Rly. Station Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Complex, Vashi, Vs. Mumbai - 400075 Navi Mumbai Pan: Aagfa5482L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi (AR)
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

order before the Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. CIT (A) after hearing the assessee restricted the addition to 12.5% of the total amount of bogus purchases. Against the said findings, the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The revenue has challenged the impugned order passed ... erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,69,996/- 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

ITO 27(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Ajay Manohar Darara, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2009-2010

ITA 5689/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Ito-27(1)(1), Shri Ajay Manohar Darara, Tower No. 6, 4Th Floor, B-136, Ghatkopar Industrial Room No. 406, Vashi Rly. Station Estate, Lbs Marg, Complex, Vashi, Vs. Ghatkopar (W), Navi Mumbai Mumbai - 400086 Pan: Abkpd4896Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri R. Bhoopathi (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Viraj Y. Mehta (Ca) Date Of Hearing: 03/10/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 11/10/2019 O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 11.07.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-25 (For Short ‘The Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2009-10, Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Proprietor Of M/S Hycon Industries, Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Office & School Furniture & Executive Chairs Etc., Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration Declaring Total Income Of Rs.8,86,598/-. Subsequently, It Came To The Notice Of The Ao That The Assessee Had Shown Purchases Amounting To Rs. 1,32,435/-/- From Two Bogus Parties Declared By The Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra Who Used To Provide Accommodation Bills Without Supplying Any Goods. Accordingly, The Ao Issued Notice U/S 148 Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Y. Mehta (CA)For Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

order before the Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. CIT (A) after hearing the assessee restricted the addition to 12.5% of the total amount of bogus purchases. Against the said findings, the revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The revenue has challenged the impugned order passed ... erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,15,881/- 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

Shri Babulal B. Suthar, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2010-11

ITA 5674/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-2011 & Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Shri Babulal B. Suthar, The Ito – 19(1)(2), 26, Gr. Floor, Durgadevi Road, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Kumbharwada, Mumbai - 400007 Mumbai - 400004 Vs. Pan: Aadps7629G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rishabh N. Mehta (Ca) Revenue By : Shri R. Bhoopathi (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 01/10/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 11/10/2019

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh N. Mehta (CA)For Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 148

sake of convenience. The facts of both the cases and the issues involved in the both the appeals are identical except the amount of bogus purchases determined by the Assessment Years: 2010-11 and 2011-12 AO. Hence, we take the facts of the assessee’s case for the assessment ... order before the Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. CIT (A) after hearing the assessee confirmed the addition of 12.5% of the total amount of bogus purchases. Against the said findings, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The assessee has challenged the impugned order passed

Mafatlal H. Bothra HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 5364/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhanita Nos.5364 & 5365/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Singh, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Jothilakshmi Nayak, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

that as per the details received from the Sales Tax Department, the assessee was found to be one of the beneficiary who had obtained bogus purchase bills from certain hawala parties, its case was reopened under Sec.147 of the Act. In the course of the assessment proceedings, it was observed ... 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 of other genuine purchases. We thus respectfully following the aforesaid judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court, direct the A.O to restrict

Income Tax Officer 20(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Shri Kaizad Rushi Anklasaria, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue as well as the Cross Objections filed by the assessee, are dismissed

ITA 5343/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The Income Tax Officer-20(2)-3, Shri Kaizad Rushi Anklesaria, R. No. 210, Piramal Chambers, 802/8, Hilla Tower, 2Nd Floor, Parel, S.S.R. Road, Lalbaugh, Mumbai - 400012 Vs. Mumbai - 400012 Pan: Aadpa0360M (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 203/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5343/Mum/2018) Assessment Year: 2010-2011 Co No. 202/Mum/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5342/Mum/2018) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Shri Kaizad Rushi Anklesaria, The Income Tax Officer-20(2)-3, 802/8, Hilla Tower, Mumbai S.S.R. Road, Lalbaugh, Mumbai - 400012 Vs. Pan: Aadpa0360M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Manish Trivedi (CA)For Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi (DR)
Section 143Section 40A

restricted the addition CO No. 202 & 203/MUM/2019 Assessment Years: 2010-11 and 2011-12 to 12.5% of the total amount of bogus purchases determined by the AO. The revenue is in appeal against the said findings of the Ld. CIT (A). 4. The revenue has challenged the impugned order passed ... erred in granting relief of Rs. 1,63,012/- by restricting the addition to 12.5% of alleged bogus purchases. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ad in law, the ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate the fact that onus is on the assessee to explain

Income Tax Officer Ward-3(3), Kalyan vs. Shri Kantilal M Jain, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment years 2009-10,

ITA 5307/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Assessment Year: 2010-2011 & Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The Income Tax Officer-Wad3(3), Shri Kantilal M Jain, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, 1, Ground Floor, Building 25, Murbad Road, Ganesh Krupa, P Dinkar Road, Kalyan (W) - 421301 Vs. Dombivali Pan: Aatpj1458J (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri R. Bhoopathi (Dr) Assessee By : Shri N.A. Kulkarni (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 01/10/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 11/10/2019

For Appellant: Shri N.A. Kulkarni (AR)For Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi (DR)
Section 133Section 142Section 143Section 143(1)Section 148

primary onus of establishing genuineness of the purchases by submitting the documentary evidence, the AO has wrongly made 100% addition of the alleged bogus purchases. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises ... further submitted that in any case the Ld. CIT (A)has rightly restricted the addition to 12.5% of the total amount of the alleged bogus purchases and there is no merit in the revenue’s appeal. 5. We have carefully gone through the relevant record including the cases relied upon