← 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

Bipin Mangalji Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 4115/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148

Second issue raised is upon merits of sustaining the addition of disallowance @ 12.5% as reduced by gross profit margin already disclosed on alleged bogus purchases. 3. This appeal was first disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 2.2.2017 by ex-parte order. Subsequently, pursuant to the recall, another order ... declaring income at on 24/08/2009. The AO received 2 Bipin Mangalji Sanghvi information from the Investigation Wing that the assessee has entered into bogus purchase transactions with 20 parties totaling to Rs. 1,56,26,375/-. After recording reasons, the assessment was reopened by issue of notice u/s 148. During

ITO - 27 (1)(4), Mumbai vs. Deepak Enterprises, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5720/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Mehta-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak- Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.2,74,221/- 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 ... Ld.CIT(A) erred in estimating the profit from Hawala purchases by disallowing only Rs.1,91,025/- being 12.5% of the bogus purchases as even the basic onus of producing delivery challans, transport bills etc. were not fulfilled by the assessee. We have heard and considered the arguments advanced by both

ITO 19 (2)(3), Mumbai vs. Mr. Mohammed A. Kathawala, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5714/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak-Ld. DRFor Respondent: None
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148

order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N.K.Proteins 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. CIT(A) has pronounced its order ... impugned AY u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 on 05/03/2015 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.5.81 Lacs, after sole addition of alleged bogus purchases for Rs.2.40 Lacs as against returned income of Rs.3.41 Lacs filed by the assessee on 27/09/2009 which was processed u/s.143(1). 2.2 Pursuant

ACIT- 27 (3), Mumbai vs. Rajesh Rupo Jagasia, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5712/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Ms. K.Jothilakshmi Nayak-Ld. DRFor Respondent: Adjournment Declined
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 69C

case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.11,97,512/- 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 ... Ld.CIT(A) erred in estimating the profit from Hawala purchases by disallowing only Rs.1,71,073/- being 12.5% of the bogus purchases as even the basic onus of producing delivery challans, transport bills etc. were not fulfilled by the assessee. The assessee’s representative sought adjournment in the matter which

Multiple Images, Mumbai vs. ITO -WD- 21 (2)(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5421/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak- Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making addition of Rs.5,59,317/- being 25% of alleged bogus purchases without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, the addition of Rs.5,59,317/- made is unjustified and the same may be deleted ... accounts of the Appellant and the same were supported with proper documentary evidences. Thus, the addition of Rs.5,59,317/- on account of alleged bogus purchases is unjustified and the same may be deleted. We have heard and considered the arguments advanced by both the representatives and deliberated on judicial

ITO WD- 1 (2), Thane vs. Machine & Controls, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5415/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Ms. Jothilakshmi Nayak-Ld. DRFor Respondent: None
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

r.w.s. 147 on 14/08/2014 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.16.15 Lacs, after sole addition of alleged bogus purchases for Rs.2.74 Lacs as against returned income of Rs.13.40 Lacs filed by the assessee on 28/09/2011 which was processed u/s.143(1). 3 Machine & Controls Assessment Year ... Pursuant to receipt of certain information from Sales Tax Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, it transpired that the assessee obtained bogus purchases bills amounting to Rs.2.74 Lacs from 4 entities, the details of which have already been extracted at para-2 of the quantum assessment order. Accordingly, the case was reopened

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 15(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ten Constructions (India) Private Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 4911/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodacit-15(3)(1) Vs. Ten Constructions (India) 4Th Floor, Room No.451 Private Limited, 3Rd Floor, Shop No. J-219, Aaykar Bhavan, M K Road Mumbai-400020 Tower No. 5, Vashi Railway Station, Navi Mumbai-400705

Section 143(3)Section 147

bills to various parties in Mumbai. As per list of beneficiaries, the assessee is one of the beneficiary, who had taken accommodation bills of bogus purchases from 14 parties as listed by the AO in para 2 of assessment order amounting to Rs. 1,40,64,522/-. The case ... r.w.s. 147 of the I.T.Act, 1961 on 30/03/2016 and determined total income of Rs. 2,21,71,095/, after making 100% additions towards alleged bogus purchases from those parties and made additions of Rs. 1,40,64,522/-. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assesee preferred an appeal before

ACIT - Circle-3, Kalyan vs. Uday Bharatkumar Mehta, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 5697/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Ms.K. Jothilakhsmi Nayak–Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri Marlon Rego- Ld. AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 69C

impugned AY u/s. 143(3) on 05/03/2014 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.26.78 Lacs, after sole addition of alleged bogus purchases for Rs.21.29 Lacs as against returned income of Rs.5.48 Lacs filed by the assessee on 28/09/2011 which was initially processed u/s.143(1). The assessee reflected ... Pursuant to receipt of certain information from Sales tax Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, it transpired that the assessee stood beneficiary of alleged bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.21.29 Lacs from 7 entities, the details of which have already been extracted at para-4 in the quantum assessment order. Accordingly

Ramesh Pratapji Purohit, Mumbai vs. ITO, WD 1 (3), Kalyan

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 5397/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Jayant Bhatt & Sanjiv G. Brahme-Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Ms.K.Jothilakshmi Nayak- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

Income Tax (Appeals) - 2, Pune, has in confirming the order of Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Kalyan on account of addition towards alleged bogus purchases of Rs 7,53,941/- for A.Y. 2009-10 disregarding the various judgments of jurisdictional Tribunal and other high Courts Judgments. (B) Relief claimed ... r.w.s. 147 on 03/01/2014 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.9.24 Lacs, after sole addition of alleged bogus purchases for Rs.7.53 Lacs as against returned income of Rs.1.70 Lacs filed by the assessee on 24/09/2009 which was processed u/s.143(1). The assessee reflected GP / NP rate

P.Kantilal & Co., Mumbai vs. ITO - 19 (2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5372/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Neelam C. Jadhav (AR)For Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari (Sr. DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

assessee has raised identical grounds of appeal except variation of figure. Facts for all the Assessment Years are identical except variation of alleged bogus purchases and disallowances thereof @ 12.5% of such purchases. Therefore, all the appeals were clubbed, heard together and are decided by common order. For appreciation of facts ... 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

ITO - WD- 22 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. Deepak Navnitlal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 5358/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhito 22(1)(2) Shri Deepak Navnitlal Shah Room No. 313, Piramal (Prop. Of M/S Rajdeep Chambers, Lalbaug, Vs. Traders 2, Maheshwar Kunj, Mumbai-400012 Saraswati Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai- 400054. Pan: Aaeps9982R Appellant Respondent Shri Deepak Navnitlal Shah Ito 22(1)(2) (Prop. Of M/S Rajdeep Room No. 313, Piramal Traders 2, Maheshwar Kunj, Vs. Chambers, Lalbaug, Saraswati Road, Santacruz (W), Mumbai-400012 Mumbai- 400054. Pan: Aaeps9982R

For Appellant: Shri Akhtar A. Ansari (DR)For Respondent: Shri Haresh Purushottamdas Shah
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 254(1)

case and in-law, the learned CIT(Appeal) was right in deleting addition made in respect of purchase from M/s C.R. Enterprises as bogus purchases, merely on the ground that the said party has filed confirmation of sales, however the ITA No. 5358 & 5375 Mum 2018-Shri Deepak Navnitlal Shah ... genuineness by obtaining fictitious invoices from other concern (bogus dealers). The Assessing Officer on his above observation disallowed 12.5% of the aggregate of alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 31,44,408/-, which was worked out to Rs. 3,93,051/-. 5. On appeal before

Shri Surender Kumar Rastogi, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2523/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Vijay Kumar Chadha, Senior DR
Section 143Section 147Section 148

identical facts of the case. 3. The Ld CIT (A) has upheld the addition of Rs.20,47,818/- on the basis alleged bogus purchases ignoring the fact the appellant had maintained the itemwise quantitative records of stock and the stock shown as purchase has either been sold or the same ... concerns, M/s. Shree Shyam Trading Company and Shree Shyam Traders are engaged in the metal trading and 95% of his business was to issue bogus purchase bills/accommodation entry bills at the commission of 20 to 50 paisa per Rs.100/-. Assessing Officer (AO) proceeded to conclude that aforesaid four persons through

Yeshala Prasuna, Secunderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Ward-15(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2141/HYD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Oct 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunku Srinivas, D.R
Section 41(1)

made payment for such purchases and payment remained with the assessee. However, the AO was not convinced and held that these are bogus purchases and that the parties being shown as sundry creditors is also bogus. Therefore, he treated total amount as bogus sundry creditors

Shri Anil Kothari (HUF), Surat vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle- 6, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2645/AHD/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Oct 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amrjit Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं".I.T.A No.2048/Ahd/2010 & 2645/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"Assessment Year:2007-08 1. Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम 1. Sri Anil J Kothari Proprietor Of Income-Tax, Circle -6, Surat. M/S. Arpit Exports, G-01, Vs. Vithrag Chambers, 7/1407 Thoba Sheri, Surat. 2. Sri Anil J Kothari Proprietor Of 2. Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Arpit Exports, G-01, Income-Tax, Circle -6, Surat. Vithrag Chambers, 7/1407 Thoba Sheri, Surat. "था. ले. सं./Pan No.: Aacha 4940 H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, C.A. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Mayank Pandey, Sr. D.R.

For Respondent: 2. Ground No.1 as amended by the Revenue states that Ld. CIT (A) has erred in de
Section 133(6)Section 271(1)(c)

confirmed the levy of penalty on the ground that the assessee was not able to give satisfactory explanation in respect of bogus purchases hence, addition so made is deemed “concealment of income” under explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 18. Being, aggrieved the assessee filed this ... basis of the same notice. Also, the Court concurs with the CIT(A) and the ITAT that once the finding of the AO on bogus purchases was set aside, it could not be said that there was any concealment of facts or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the Assessee that

Arif Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO 26(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4999/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Arif Khan Vs. Income Tax Officer 7,8,9, Stanly Compound 26(1)(2), Kherani Road Income Tax Department Sakinaka, Office Kautilya Bhavan Mumbai – 400 072 C-41, C-43, G-Block Bkc, Mumbai – 400 051 Pan/Gir No.Awypk8579N (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 144

justified in confirming the addition made by the ld. AO in the sum of Rs.17,30,838/- on account of alleged bogus purchases in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. We have heard rival submissions. We find that assessee is a Proprietor of M/s. H K Engineering Works ... profit on alleged purchases would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, we direct the ld. AO to tax only profit of 12.5% on alleged bogus purchases in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case. No arguments were advanced by the ld. AR on the validity of reopening, hence

Realstone Exports Ltd, Thane vs. ITO 11(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3580/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Realstone Exports Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer C-204, 2Nd Floor 11(1)(2), Vishal Apartments Aayakar Bhavan Taki Road, Tulinj M.K.Road, Nallasopara (E) Mumbai, Thane, Maharashtra – 400 020 Maharashtra – 401 209 Pan/Gir No. Aaccr8504K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 14Section 143(1)Section 145(3)Section 148Section 263

revenue by invoking his revisionary jurisdiction u/s.263 4 M/s. Realstone Exports Ltd., of the Act for the limited purpose of examination of bogus purchases alone by placing reliance on certain decisions as under:- a. Hon’ble Delhi High court in the case of CIT vs. D.K.Garg reported ... order passed by the ld. AO had observed that the ld. AO had failed to carry out proper investigation of the issue relating to bogus purchases, thereby causing revenue loss to the department. 3.3. We find that the ld. AO had made proper enquiry with regard to the status

Shri Jitendra S. Mamania (Prop.M/S.Roundline Industries), Mumbai vs. I.T.O. - 31(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1380/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am Shri Jitendra S. Mamania Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Prop. M/S. Roundline 31(2)(1), Mumbai Industries) 1309-A, Agarwal Industries, S.V. Road Jogeshwari (W) Mumbai – 400 102 Pan/Gir No.Addpm0623P (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(3)

decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CITA was justified in restricting the disallowance made on account of alleged bogus purchases to 25% as against 100% disallowed by the ld AO in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The brief facts of this issue

DCIT Cen Cir - 1(4), Mumbai vs. Nitin Rajmal Shah, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 7155/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7155/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09) Dcit-Central Circle-1(4) M/S. Nitin R. Shah Room No.902, Pratistha Bhavan बनाम/ C-113, Shyam Kamal Building 9Th Floor, Old Cgo Bldg. Annex. Vs. 27, Tejpal Road, Agarwal Market Mumbai-400 020. Vile Parle (E), Mumbai-400 057. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadps 5476 M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Ms. Samatha Mullamudi-Ld.Sr.Dr ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : None सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 30/09/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 04/10/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ():- 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year [Ay] 2008-09 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-47/Ap.68/15- 16 Dated 26/09/2017 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: Ms. Samatha Mullamudi-Ld.Sr.DRFor Respondent: None
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 43B

erred in restricting the disallowance of Rs. 1,54,966/- to Rs.1,24,829/- on account of bogus purchase made by the assessee to suppress the GP, on the ground that, after making a comparison of profits declared by other MCGM /BMC contractors and other group concerns ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in restricting the addition on GP on account of bogus purchase from 8,69% to uniform rate of 7% on the ground that, after making a comparison of profits declared by other MCGM /BMC contractors

DCIT Circle-1, Thane vs. M/S.Asian Hardware and Tools, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5332/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari (DR)For Respondent: None
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

whether the ld. CIT(A) ITA No. 5332 & 5333 Mum 2018-M/s Asian Hardware and Tools was not justified in restricting the disallowance of bogus purchases to the extent of 12.5% of bogus/hawala dealers/non-existent vendors. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-firm is engaged ... investigation in respect of hawala traders. The hawala traders were/are engaged in providing bogus bill without actual delivery of goods. The assessee has shown bogus purchases only to inflate the profit. The ld. DR for the revenue submits that the Assessing Officer has brought sufficient material on record to prove

Mr.Vishal Amarshi Gala, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 28(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5324/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhmr. Vishal Amarshi Gala Ito Ward-28(3)(4), 3Rd Floor, Tower No6, C/O Gautam Marketing, Plot No.42, Sector-19A, Opp. Vs. Vashi Railway Station Complex, Apmc, Opp To Manu Motors, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703. Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703. Pan: Aegpg1475B Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Miss. Hiral D. Sajpal (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Akhytar H. Ansari (Dr)

For Appellant: Miss. Hiral D. Sajpal (AR)For Respondent: Shri Akhytar H. Ansari (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

whether the reopening under section 147 is valid, (ii) whether the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in restricting the disallowance of bogus purchases to the extent of 12.5% of bogus/hawala dealers/non-existent vendors. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-firm is engaged in the business ... action of AO on reopening as well as disallowance to the extent of 12.5% og allged bogus purchases was upheld. Thus, aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before us. 5. We have heard the submission of ld. Authorized Representative