← 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

M/S. S.G. Enterprises, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 275/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Senior DR
Section 40ASection 40A(3)Section 69

hold that the assessee did not make any purchases of goods form these parties nor such parties are in existence, thus shown the bogus purchases & vouchers and thereby made an addition of Rs.39,04,809/- as unexplained expenditure under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short

Vinod H. Sanghvi, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 6345/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Vinod H. Sanghvi, Ito 19(3)(5), 2Nd Floor, C/O. D.C. Bothra& Co. Llp Matrumandir, Tardeo Road, Vs. (Ca) (Formerly Known As Mumbai-400007. D.C. Bothre& Co.) 297, Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion, 1St Floor, Opp Bank Of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai-400007. Pan No. Afmps3101F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Aditi Shroff, ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Samatha Mullamudi, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Assessing Officer (AO) received information from the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra that the assessee was involved in availing accommodation entries of bogus purchases from 17 parties amounting to Rs.5,53,69,747/-. On the basis of the said information, the AO re-opened the assessment after recording ... ITAT, the Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai had in the appellant’s own case restricted the addition to 8% of the aggregate value of alleged bogus purchases. In this case, the assessee has shown gross profit (GP) of 21.16% on the alleged non-genuine purchases. The Ld.AO had made an additional

Pooja Exports, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 6101/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pooja Exports, 306-Prasad Deputy Commissioner Of Chambers, 3Rd Floor, Opera Income Tax, Central Circle- Vs. House, Mumbai-400004. 1(1), Mumbai, Old Cgo Building, Pratistha Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai. Pan No. Aaafp1047L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anant Pai, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Awungshi Gimson, Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/07/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Anant Pai, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Awungshi Gimson, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 251

assessee with the reason that he had received information from the Director General of Income Tax (Investigation) that the assessee had made bogus purchases from one Bhanwarlal Jain Group. In the assessment order dated 20.03.2015, the AO made an addition of Rs.55,31,163/- to the income computed ... Total -14,55,14,908.09 From the above data, the Ld. CIT(A) observed that by entering into bogus purchase transactions, the assessee has been able to reduce its trading profits to the extent of Rs.14,55,14,908/-. Allowing benefit of the Pooja Exports 5 disallowance of Rs.55

ITO - 33 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jayantkumar Ratilal Mehta, Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5899/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5899/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Respondent: Shri Debang Shah, AR
Section 133(6)Section 148

declaring the income at Rs. 5,06,870/-. The AO received information from DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai, Sales Tax Department that the assessee had made bogus purchases and billings from various parties during this assessment year amounting to Rs. 16,39,548/-. Accordingly, AO reopened the assessment and issued notice ... served upon the assessee. As per the information received from DGiT(Inv.), Mumbai/Sales Tax Department that the assessee had made bogus purchases and billings from the following parties: S. No. Name of the party Amount 1 Rakesh Enterprises 1,44,806 2 Mital Enterprises 1,49,257 3 AG Corporation

Smt.Sarojdevi S Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 9(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5855/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Sarojdevi S. Jain, Prop: Ratan Steel Industries, Vs. 36/40, Room No.34, Income Tax Officer, Hinglaj Bhavan, Ward-9(3)(2), Gulal Wadi, Mumbai Mumbai [Pan : Aadpj0340D] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Ramtiwari, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

submitting that the appeal of assessee may be dismissed as : 3 : the assessee was found to be engaged in availing bogus purchases from Hawala Parties, without physical delivery of materials thereby saving non-payment of VAT and various other levies. Therefore, ld DR prayed before the Bench that the addition ... therefore, of the view that it would be reasonable and fair if the addition is directed @ 4%, on the said bogus purchases of the assessee. Accordingly, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and direct the AO to make addition @ 4% . 7. Since we have decided the issue

ITO 33 (1)(5), Mumbai vs. Harshad M. Padia, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue for assessment year 2010-11

ITA 5821/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-2011 & Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The Ito-33(1)(5), Shri Harshadrai M. Padia, C-12, 703, Pratyakshakar Khyati Hydraulics, 13, Bhavan, Bkc, Gopal Kunj, Sarojini Naidu Mumbai - 400051 Vs. Road, Kandivali (West), Mumbai - 400067 Pan: Aabpp1488Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri C.S. Sharma (Dr) Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing: 24/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2019 O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Orders Dated 08.06.2018 & 11.06.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-45 (For Short ‘The Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively, Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143 (3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short The ‘Act’). Since, Both The Appeals Pertain To The Same Assessee, The Same Were Clubbed, Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common & Consolidated Order For The Sake Of Convenience. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee An Individual & Proprietor Of M/S Khyati Hydraulics Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C.S. Sharma (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 142Section 143Section 148

goods were actually supplied by the parties. However, AO rejecting the contention of the assessee made addition of 25% of the total amount of bogus purchases and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 9,15,820/-.The assessee challenged the assessment order before ... delivery challans, octroi bills, the AO held that the assessee arranged bills to suppress the true profits and estimated the profit on alleged bogus purchases at 25% of such disputed purchases. In this regard, it is found that many Benches of ITAT and Hon’ble High Courts have held that

Pareshkumar Babulal Kadhi, Mumbai vs. ACIT 27(2)(5), Mumbai

ITA 5806/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5806/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Respondent: Shri C. S. Sharma, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

ground no. 2, Ld. AR submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has sustained the addition made by the AO on estimating @ 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases overlooking that assessee has already declared GP ratio of 13.21% and over the years, assessee has declared income 13% to 14%. He submitted ... Bench of 4 I.T.A. No. 5806/Mum/2018 Pareshkumar Babulal Kadhi, ITAT passed in ITA No. 1862/Mum/2017, wherein the bench has estimated @ 3% of the alleged bogus purchases. 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by revenue authorities and submitted that estimation made

ITO 24 (3)(5), Mumbai vs. Ravi Ramniklal Kothari, Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5801/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5801/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri C. S. Sharma, DR byFor Respondent: None
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

from DGIT(Inv), Mumbai, wherein it was stated that information was received from Sales Tax Department, Govt. of Maharashtra that assessee is involved in bogus purchases /hawala transactions. As per the details furnished by them and from the data available on record, AO found that assessee has acquired some bogus ... made the addition by observing that assessee has not received any material nor possess any delivery note, accordingly, he disallowed 25% of the bogus purchases. 6. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submission of the assessee

ACIT - 31 (1), Mumbai vs. Anupam Stationary Plaza, Mumbai

Accordingly these grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5794/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5794/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Respondent: Shri Jas Sanghavi, AR
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 148Section 36(1)(vii)

after considering the submission of the assessee, had reduced the disallowance of 20% to 12.5% of the bogus purchases. 5. Aggrieved with the above order, revenue has preferred the appeal before us. 4 I.T.A. No. 5794/Mum/2018 Anupam Stationary Plaza 6. Considering the rival contentions and material placed on record ... earned by assessee 5 I.T.A. No. 5794/Mum/2018 Anupam Stationary Plaza against purchase of material in the grey market and undue benefit of VAT against bogus purchases, we are of the considered view that upholding the additions @ 25% of the sales by Ld. CIT(A) is unreasonable. The ends of justice

Rajesh K. Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO - 27 (3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5751/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5751/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Respondent: Shri C. S. Sharma, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

before us. 5. Ld. AR submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has sustained the addition made by the AO on estimating @ 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases overlooking that assessee has already declared GP ratio. He submitted a chart of gross profit at the time of hearing, which is placed ... high and he relied upon the various judgments passed by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, wherein the bench has estimated @ 3% of the alleged bogus purchases. 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by revenue authorities and submitted that estimation made

Ranjan Ramesh Doshi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-27(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeals are dismissed, accordingly

ITA 5750/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5750/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Respondent: Shri C. S. Sharma, DR
Section 143(3)Section 148

before us. 5. Ld. AR submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has sustained the addition made by the AO on estimating @ 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases overlooking that assessee has already declared GP ratio. He submitted a chart of gross profit at the time of hearing, which is placed

Pragaram J. Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (2)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 5743/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Pragaram J. Patel, The Ito 19(2)(5), 67/26, 2Nd Floor, Kholsawala Room No. 210, Building, Dr. M.G. Mahimtura Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Marg, 3Rd Kumbharwada, Vs. Mumbai - 400007 Mumbai – 400004 Pan: Aacpp1462B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri C.S. Sharma (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 26/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2019 O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.07.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4 (For Short ‘The Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2010-11, Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short The ‘Act’).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C.S. Sharma (DR)
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

goods were actually supplied by the parties. However, AO rejecting the contention of the assessee made addition of 12.5% of total amount of bogus purchases and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 12,93,990/-The assessee challenged the assessment order before ... said case, the Hon’ble Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal and sustained the addition 12.5% of the total bogus purchases determined by the Tribunal, holding that only profit element embedded in such purchases can be added to income of the assessee. Hence, in our considered view, the order

ITO 27 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. Anam M. Pragji (HUF), Mumbai

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

ITA 5730/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Ito-27(1)(1), M/S Anam M Pargi Huf, Tower No. 6, 4Th Floor, Shop No. 3-608, Punit Jyot, Room No. 406, Vashi Rly Station, Behind Vasant Prabhat Bldg., Complex, Vashi, Vs. V.N. Purav Marg, Chembur, Navi Mumbai Mumbai - 400071 Pan: Aaaht8606F (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri C.S. Sharma (Dr) Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing: 26/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2019

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C.S. Sharma (DR)
Section 142Section 144Section 148

genuine and the goods were actually supplied by the parties. However, AO rejecting the contention of the assessee made addition of the amount of bogus purchases and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs. 14,11,875/-The assessee challenged the assessment order before ... erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,29,425/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases, without appreciating the fact that the assesse 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)(4), Mumbai vs. Dharmesh Babulal Patel, Mumbai

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

ITA 5724/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Ito-27(1)(4), Shri Dharmesh Babulal Patel, Tower No. 6, 4Th Floor, 603, Sun Shine Arts, Room No. 409, Vashi Rly Station, Kale Guruji Marg, Dadar, Complex, Vashi, Vs. Mumbai - 400028 Navi Mumbai Pan: Ahhpp2409E (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri C.S. Sharma (Dr) Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing: 26/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2019

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C.S. Sharma (DR)
Section 142Section 144Section 148

said letter. Accordingly, the AO completed the assessment u/s 144 read with 147 of the Act and after making interalia the amount of bogus purchases to the income of the assessee determined the total income at Rs. 5,77,550/-. The assessee challenged the assessment order before ... erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 53,611/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases, without appreciating the fact that the assesse had failed to produce bills, vouchers and other documentary evidences in support of his claim and without considering the latest Apex Court decision

Shri Shabbir Kutbuddin Attar, Mumbai vs. ITO 28(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5293/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-2011 & Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Shri Shabbir Kutbuddin Attar, The Ito 28(3)(2), B-402, 4Th Floor, Sawan Elegence, Vashi Income Tax Department Plot No. 68/69, Sector – 2A, Koparkhairne, Vs. Navi Mumbai - 400701 Pan: Ahcpa9351M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sabir M. Shaikh (Ar) Revenue By : Shri R. Bhoopathi (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 30/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2019 O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Orders Dated 29.06.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26 (For Short ‘The Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively, Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143 (3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short The ‘Act’). Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee A Trader/Retailer In Various Hardware Tools & Equipments Used In Plants & Machinery, Had Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 3,30,436/-. Subsequently, In The Year 2016 The Ao Received Information From Sales Tax Department Maharashtra Through Dgit (Investigation) To The Effect That The Assessee During The Year Relevant To The Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sabir M. Shaikh (AR)For Respondent: Shri R. Bhoopathi (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 147Section 148

effect that the assessee during the year relevant to the Assessment Years: 2010-11 and 2011-12 assessment year under consideration obtained bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs. 3,35,995/- from six parties, whose were listed as hawala parties by the sales tax department, without purchasing goods from them ... transactions.” 3. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted before us that since the AO had made addition of the total amount of alleged bogus purchases without taking into consideration the submissions made by the assessee in the light of the documentary evidence produced by the assessee to prove

M/S.Valson Fabricators, Mumbai vs. ITO 28(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011

ITA 5292/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Valsons Fabricators, The Ito-28(3)(4), Plot No. 85, Midc Thane Belapur Tower No. 6, Vashi Station Road, Ttc Industrial Area, Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai - 400701 Vs. Navi Mumbai - 400703 Pan: Aacfv5519P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Neha Paranjape (Ar) Revenue By : Shri R. Boopathi (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 30/09/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/09/2019 O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.06.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26 (For Short ‘The Cit(A), Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2010-11, Whereby The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed 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’). Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Dealing In Roll Forming Machinery & Dies Etc., Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 2,17,660/-. The Return Was Processed U/S 143(3) Of The Act. Subsequently, In The Year 2015 The Ao Received Information From Sales Tax Department Maharashtra Through Dgit (Investigation) To The Effect That The Assessee During The Year Relevant To The Assessment Year Under Consideration Obtained Bogus Purchase Bills Amounting To Rs. 8,41,933/- From Five Parties, Whose Were Listed As Hawala Dealers By The Sales Tax Department, Without Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Paranjape (AR)For Respondent: Shri R. Boopathi (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

sales tax department Maharashtra through DGIT (Investigation) to the effect that the assessee during the year relevant to the assessment year under consideration obtained bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs. 8,41,933/- from five parties, whose were listed as hawala dealers by the sales tax department, without Assessment Year ... circumstances of the case and in law, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming re-assessment. 3. Addition on account of bogus purchases Rs. 8,41,933/- 3.1 The learned Commissioner of income-tax (Appeals) has erred in law and in facts in confirming that the assessee

Laxman D Daware, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3464/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 147

A.Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Laxman D Daware assessment u/s. 147 of the Act and estimating the profit element on alleged bogus purchases. 2. Assessee has raised following common grounds in all these three appeals except for the figures: - “1. In the facts and circumstances ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in estimating profit at 9.36% of the alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 1,07,55,229/-, when the books of accounts of the assessee were not rejected u/s. 145 of the Income

Laxman D. Daware, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3463/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 147

A.Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Laxman D Daware assessment u/s. 147 of the Act and estimating the profit element on alleged bogus purchases. 2. Assessee has raised following common grounds in all these three appeals except for the figures: - “1. In the facts and circumstances ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in estimating profit at 9.36% of the alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 1,07,55,229/-, when the books of accounts of the assessee were not rejected u/s. 145 of the Income

Laxman D. Daware, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3462/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Prakash PanditFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 147

A.Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Laxman D Daware assessment u/s. 147 of the Act and estimating the profit element on alleged bogus purchases. 2. Assessee has raised following common grounds in all these three appeals except for the figures: - “1. In the facts and circumstances ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in estimating profit at 9.36% of the alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 1,07,55,229/-, when the books of accounts of the assessee were not rejected u/s. 145 of the Income

ACIT - 22 (3), Mumbai vs. Vipul Diamond, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2793/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-22(3), Room No. M/S Vipul Diamond, 305, Piramanl Chambers, 1002, Bhoomi Tower Vs. Lalbaug, Mumbai- Nehru Road, Santacruz 400012. (E), Mumbai-400055. Pan No. Aaafv5324N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. K.A. Vaidyalingan, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Sushil Kumar Poddar, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition to 3% of the total bogus purchases of Rs.11,17,20,486/- without appreciating that the assessee during the assessment proceedings could not establish the genuineness of purchases. 2. On the fact ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition to 3% of the total bogus purchases of Rs.11,17,20,486/- without considering the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of N.K. Proteins Ltd. SLP CC No. 769 of 2017 vs. DCIT dated