← 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.Classic Metal, Prop.Champalal Devichand Mehta (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4742/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Classic Metal, Prop. Ito - 19(1)(3) Champalal Devichand Mehta Bkc, Bandra (Huf), 319, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai. Room No.8, Jeriwala Building, Sadashiv Cross Lane, Mumbai-400004. Pan: Aaahm3707Q Appellant Respondent M/S Classic Metal, Prop. Ito - 19(1)(3) Champalal Devichand Mehta Bkc, Bandra (Huf), 319, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai. Room No.8, Jeriwala Building, Sadashiv Cross Lane, Mumbai-400004. Pan: Aaahm3707Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Pooja M. Chhawachharia (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Chaitnya Anjaria (Dr)

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja M. Chhawachharia (AR)For Respondent: Shri Chaitnya Anjaria (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

erred in confirming the action of the A.O and approving the addition calculated by the A.O on alleged bogus purchases without appreciating the facts that the opinion of the A.O is based on merely presumptions and sub conjectures and not on any material evidences corroborating the purchases when ... section 143(3) r.w.s 147. 4. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the action of Assessing Officer and disallowances made on account of bogus purchases was sustained. Further, aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before

Shri Dinesh J Lalwani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 22(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4194/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Daran GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 133(6)

appeals the assessee challenged the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in sustaining the reopening and also sustaining the addition made at 12.5% of the bogus purchases. 3. Brief facts are, in the Assessment Order Assessing Officer state that based on the information received from Pr.DIT (Inv.), Mumbai the assessments were ... addition. 4. Before me, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that there is no justification in making the addition @12.5% of the bogus purchases on the facts of the assessee’s case. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits (A.Ys: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shri Dinesh J Lalwani that assessee

Shri Dinesh J Lalwani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 22(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4193/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Daran GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 133(6)

appeals the assessee challenged the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in sustaining the reopening and also sustaining the addition made at 12.5% of the bogus purchases. 3. Brief facts are, in the Assessment Order Assessing Officer state that based on the information received from Pr.DIT (Inv.), Mumbai the assessments were ... addition. 4. Before me, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that there is no justification in making the addition @12.5% of the bogus purchases on the facts of the assessee’s case. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits (A.Ys: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shri Dinesh J Lalwani that assessee

Sobhagmull Gokal Chand Jewellers, Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 3771/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sunil HiravatFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria

sustaining the reopening of assessment and on merits (A.Ys: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shri Dinesh J Lalwani in estimating the profit element from alleged bogus purchases @3%. For the A.Y. 2013-14 the assessee challenged the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in estimating the profit element at 3% on alleged ... bogus purchases. 3. In so far as the Ground relating to challenging the validity of reassessment order, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the grounds of appeal are not pressed. In view of the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee Ground

Sobhagmull Gokal Chand Jewellers, Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 3768/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sunil HiravatFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria

sustaining the reopening of assessment and on merits (A.Ys: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shri Dinesh J Lalwani in estimating the profit element from alleged bogus purchases @3%. For the A.Y. 2013-14 the assessee challenged the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in estimating the profit element at 3% on alleged ... bogus purchases. 3. In so far as the Ground relating to challenging the validity of reassessment order, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the grounds of appeal are not pressed. In view of the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee Ground

Sobhagmull Gokal Chand Jewellers, Mumbai vs. ACIT-19(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 3767/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sunil HiravatFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria

sustaining the reopening of assessment and on merits (A.Ys: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shri Dinesh J Lalwani in estimating the profit element from alleged bogus purchases @3%. For the A.Y. 2013-14 the assessee challenged the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in estimating the profit element at 3% on alleged ... bogus purchases. 3. In so far as the Ground relating to challenging the validity of reassessment order, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the grounds of appeal are not pressed. In view of the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee Ground

Sachin Anantray Ghelani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-27(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 2078/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2078/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Sachin Anantray Ghelani बिधम/ Ito 27(3)(2) 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6 A/12, Mahavir Mansion, Vs. Vallabh Baug Lane Railway Station, Extension, Ghatkopar (E), Commercial Complex Vashi, Mumbai-400077. Mumbai-400703. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Achpg2092D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nilesh Nandkumar Pitale Revenue By: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/07/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 19.01.2018 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -25, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Nandkumar PitaleFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

grounds: - “1 The learned Assessing officer erred in making an addition of' Rs.23,80,889/- being 12.5% of Rs.1,90,47,912 being alleged bogus purchase merely based on third party evidence even though all the proof and documents to prove the genuineness of the purchase like purchase order copies ... reopened on the basis of the letter received from the DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai in which it was conveyed that the assessee has taken the bogus purchase entry from the following four parties:- Sr. No. PAN of Hawala Name of the Hawala Amount (Rs.) F.Y. Supplier Supplier 1 AQIPR7316G PadmavatiTrading

ACIT - 19(1), Mumbai vs. Hitech Engineers, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5877/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhacit - 19(1) M/S Hi Tech Engineers Room No. 203, 2Nd Floor, 477-479, Goldeval, Ladi Bazaar, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Vs. Maulana Azad Road, Mumbai-400007. Mumbai-400004. Pan: Aaafh0253L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (Sr. DR)For Respondent: None
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N K Protein Ltd. Dated 16.01.2017, which is on the similar issue of bogus purchases and when the apex court order was already the law of the land when the Ld. CIT(A) has given his decision vide order dated ... engaged in 4 ITA No. 5877 Mum 2017-M/s Hi Tech Engineers. providing bogus bill without actual delivery of goods. The assessee has shown bogus purchases to inflate the profit. The ld. DR for the revenue submits that the ld CIT(A) failed to consider that the assessee

Electromac Industries, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-24(1)-5, Mumbai

In the result,appeals filed by the assessee for all assessment

ITA 4700/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwin Chhag, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr, DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 41

decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth {355 ITR 290 (Guj)}estimated profit on alleged bogus purchases ranging from 25% to 34.40% depending upon facts of each case. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before ... Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth {355 ITR 290 (Guj)} scaled down estimation of profit on alleged bogus purchases to 15% for all years on the ground that whenthe AO has not doubted sales declared by the assessee, purchases from certain parties cannot

Electromac Industries, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-24(1)-5, Mumbai

In the result,appeals filed by the assessee for all assessment

ITA 4697/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwin Chhag, ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr, DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 41

decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth {355 ITR 290 (Guj)}estimated profit on alleged bogus purchases ranging from 25% to 34.40% depending upon facts of each case. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before ... Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P. Sheth {355 ITR 290 (Guj)} scaled down estimation of profit on alleged bogus purchases to 15% for all years on the ground that whenthe AO has not doubted sales declared by the assessee, purchases from certain parties cannot

Pushpa Nareshkumar Dhanania, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 17(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2569/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer Smt. Pushpa Nareshkumar Dhanania V. 24, Saraswati Sadan Ward No. 17(2)(5) 1St Floor, 113 Keshavji Naik Road Mumbai Fort, Mumbai – 400 009 Pan: Adwpd 7778 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Haresh P. Shah Department By : Shri Chaitanya Anjaria

For Appellant: Shri Haresh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 10.01.2017 for the A.Y. 2009-10 in sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer on alleged bogus purchases @12.5%. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that, the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in Pipe Fittings, filed return of income ... case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in not confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases shown to have been made through hawala transactions from certain parties who were only providing accommodation sale bills? (b) Whether on the facts

ACIT 29(1), Mumbai vs. Dhiren P. Nandu (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed and the cross-objection of the assessee is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 2362/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2362/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit-29(1) बिधम/ M/S. Dhiren P. Nandu (Huf) Room No. 108, 1St Floor, C- 3, Gupta Niwas, Vp Road, Vs. 10 Pratyankshakar Bhavan, Mulund West, Mumbai-80. B.K.C, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 51. Co. No.359/M/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita. No. 2362/Mum/2017) (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Acit-29(1) M/S. Dhiren P. Nandu (Huf) बिधम/ 3, Gupta Niwas, Vp Road, Room No. 108, 1St Floor, C- Vs. Mulund West, Mumbai-80. 10 Pratyankshakar Bhavan, B.K.C, Bandra (E), Mumbai- 51. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaahd1784L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri D. G. Pansari (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Paras Savla / Pratik Poddar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/07/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue As Well As Assessee Have Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals As Well As Cross-Objection Against The Order Dated 25.01.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-40, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009-10. Ita. No.2362/M/17 Co. No.359/M/2018 A.Y. 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Paras Savla / Pratik PoddarFor Respondent: Shri D. G. Pansari (Sr. AR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

Pravin Kumar Jain was operating and managing 71 benami concerns through which they are involved in providing bogus entries of unsecured loans and bogus purchases to various beneficiaries. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider

DCIT Cir 6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Ion Exchange India Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1759/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri P.R.V. Raghavan- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh K Das –Ld. DR

Companies 1,90,390/- 6. Interest Expenditure on investment in subsidiary companies 26,73,102/- 7. Interest on Borrowed Capital 68,117/- 8. Alleged bogus purchases 65,87,295/- 9. Disallowance u/s.36(1)(va) 37,967/- 4.3 Transfer Pricing Issues Certain international transactions being carried out by the assessee ... year also. No distinguishing features or facts could be pointed out. Therefore, Ground Nos. 5 to 8 of revenue’s appeal stands dismissed. 4.4.6 Bogus purchases: It was noted that the assessee made purchases of Rs.65.87 Lacs from an entity namely J.B. Interlink which was declared as Hawala Dealer

Ion Exchange (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 6(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1688/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri P.R.V. Raghavan- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh K Das –Ld. DR

Companies 1,90,390/- 6. Interest Expenditure on investment in subsidiary companies 26,73,102/- 7. Interest on Borrowed Capital 68,117/- 8. Alleged bogus purchases 65,87,295/- 9. Disallowance u/s.36(1)(va) 37,967/- 4.3 Transfer Pricing Issues Certain international transactions being carried out by the assessee ... year also. No distinguishing features or facts could be pointed out. Therefore, Ground Nos. 5 to 8 of revenue’s appeal stands dismissed. 4.4.6 Bogus purchases: It was noted that the assessee made purchases of Rs.65.87 Lacs from an entity namely J.B. Interlink which was declared as Hawala Dealer

Ruby Polyplast P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1150/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer M/S. Ruby Polyplast Pvt. Ltd., V. Shivam Ground Floor Ward No. 13(3)(2) Charkravati Ashok Road Ayakar Bhavan Ashok Nagar, Kandivali (E) Mumbai – 400 002 Mumbai – 400 101 Pan: Aabcv 2892 H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rajendra Singhavi Department By : Shri Chaitanya Anjaria

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra SinghaviFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria
Section 133(6)Section 69

noticed from the Tribunal record that this appeal was disposed off by order dated 07.06.2017 adjudicating ground No. 1 regarding bogus purchases, wherein this Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of bogus purchases. Subsequently on filing 2 M/s. Ruby Polyplast Pvt. Ltd., M.A.No. 901/Mum/2017 ... sundry creditor namely M/s. Health Plus but the notice was returned unserved. Assessing Officer presumed that this is also a bogus purchase transaction and accordingly disallowed. I noticed that no further information was asked by the Assessing Officer. It is not intimated to the assessee that the notice was returned

Savitaben Patel, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4402/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. VimalPunmiya, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 234C

genuine purchase of materials, which were used in the fabrication of equipments supplied to the customers of appellant and treating the same as bogus purchases, on the basis of inference and assumptions and the same is not based on any adverse evidence or detection of accounting entries in the books ... income of Rs.1,62,02,770/-. On receipt of the information from the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra that the assessee has obtained bogus purchase bills from entry providers, the Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148. In response to it, the assessee requested

DCIT 5(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Diasqua India P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 3234/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidiasqua India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit-5(1)(2) Room No.568, 5Th Floor Cw-6061,6062,6063,6071 Bharath Diamond Bourse Aaykar Bhawan Bkc, Bandra(E) M.K.Road Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaccd3418N Appellant) .. Respondent) & Dcit-5(1)(2) Vs. Diasqua India Pvt.Ltd. Room No.568, 5Th Floor Cw-6061,6062,6063,6071 Aaykar Bhawan Bharath Diamond Bourse M.K.Road Bkc, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaccd3418N Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Suchek Achalia, Ar Revenue By Somnath Wajale, Dr

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

case and in law, the Ld, CIT (A) erred in applying 12.50% of the Purchases of Rs.1,81,69,414/- as alleged bogus purchase, without appreciating the fact that the payment was made through cross account payee cheque and the same goods were subsequently sold and quantity is tallied ... circumstances of the case and in tow, the Ld.CIT(A)erred in directing the Assessing Officer to work out 12.50% of the so called bogus purchases made from four parties and add back the same to the taxable income in place of the addition of Rs.1,81,69,414/- made

Diasqua India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 5 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2283/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ram Lal Negidiasqua India Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit-5(1)(2) Room No.568, 5Th Floor Cw-6061,6062,6063,6071 Bharath Diamond Bourse Aaykar Bhawan Bkc, Bandra(E) M.K.Road Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 020 Pan/Gir No.Aaccd3418N Appellant) .. Respondent) & Dcit-5(1)(2) Vs. Diasqua India Pvt.Ltd. Room No.568, 5Th Floor Cw-6061,6062,6063,6071 Aaykar Bhawan Bharath Diamond Bourse M.K.Road Bkc, Bandra(E) Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 051 Pan/Gir No. Aaccd3418N Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Suchek Achalia, Ar Revenue By Somnath Wajale, Dr

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

case and in law, the Ld, CIT (A) erred in applying 12.50% of the Purchases of Rs.1,81,69,414/- as alleged bogus purchase, without appreciating the fact that the payment was made through cross account payee cheque and the same goods were subsequently sold and quantity is tallied ... circumstances of the case and in tow, the Ld.CIT(A)erred in directing the Assessing Officer to work out 12.50% of the so called bogus purchases made from four parties and add back the same to the taxable income in place of the addition of Rs.1,81,69,414/- made

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rajiv Gupta

ITA-828/2005HC Delhi31 Jul 2019
Section 132Section 145Section 145(3)

reject the assessment under Section 145 (3) of the Act if he finds that there are defects in the books of accounts and where bogus purchases are shown by the Assessee in order to reduce gross profit. It was further held by the Supreme Court that: “It is well settled

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Rajiv Gupta

ITA - 828 / 2005HC Delhi31 Jul 2019
Section 132Section 145Section 145(3)

reject the assessment under Section 145 (3) of the Act if he finds that there are defects in the books of accounts and where bogus purchases are shown by the Assessee in order to reduce gross profit. It was further held by the Supreme Court that: “It is well settled