← 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

Grafica Flextronica, Mumbai vs. ACIT 25(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 295/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Grafica Flextronica Acit-25(2), Room No. 508, C-10, 5Th 3, “Saurabh- “A” Chs Ltd., Vs. Ground Floor, Next To Bhuta Floor, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, High School, Shahaji Raje Bandra Kurla Complex, Marg, Vile Parle (East), ” Bandra (East), Mumbai-400057. Mumbai-400051. Pan: Aaafg4064A Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah (C.A) Respondent By : Shri Abhi Rama Karthikeyan S. (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.06.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah (C.A)For Respondent: Shri Abhi Rama Karthikeyan S. (Sr. DR)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 19.03.2013. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order made disallowance on account of bogus purchases of Rs. 6,37,894/- ( being 25% of total purchases of Rs. 28,78,959/-) and initiated the penalty under section 271(1)(c). Thereafter ... further restricted to 12.5% of the purchases in respect of three parties. In respect of one more party the addition on account of bogus purchase was also made @ 25% of such purchases. It was argued that no 3 ITA No. 295 Mum 2018-M/s Grafica Flextronica penalty levied

Radhey Shyam, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 63(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 8064/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Shri V.R. Sonbhadra, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148

Delhi forwarded through CIT, Central-II, New Delhi and the CCIT, Delhi-I, New Delhi respectively wherein the list of parties to whom the bogus purchases / accommodation entries provided by Shri Rakesh Gupta, Shri Vishesh Gupta, Shri Navneet Jain and Shri Vaibhav Jain was appearing. The A.O, therefore, noted that ... case of the assessee. The A.O. held that purchases of Rs.4,65,888/- made from M/s. Vishu Trading Co. is bogus purchases obtained by assessee and addition of the same sum was made. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of assessee. 3. Learned Counsel for the Assessee

Income Tax Officer 19(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Shri Hiralal M. Jain, Mumbai

Appeal are partly allowed

ITA 5718/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh (DR)
Section 143(3)

justified in not confirming the addition @ 12.5% of total unexplained expenditure of Rs.8,18,91,993/- made on account of bogus purchase by the Assessing officer and limiting it to only 6% of the bogus purchases?" ITA. No. 5718/M/2017 A.Y.2011-12 2 'Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ... information was received from the DGIT(Inv.) Wing, Mumbai-1 in which it was conveyed was that the assessee has taken the entry of bogus purchases of Rs.8,18,91,993/-. The assessee has taken the entry of bogus purchase from the following parties.:- Name F.Y. Amount 1 Nisha Enterprise

Income Tax Officer vs. Deepak Shankar Panaskar, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 204/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 203 & 204/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

appeals by the Revenue are directed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Nashik, deleting addition made in respect of bogus purchases and deleting penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on the addition made ... respect of bogus purchases. A.Y.2010-11 ITA No.203/PUN/2017 by Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Nashik dated 02.11.2016 in quantum appeal and ITA No.204/PUN/2017 by Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Nashik dated 04.11.2016 deleting penalty levied

Income Tax Officer vs. Deepak Shankar Panaskar, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 203/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 203 & 204/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

appeals by the Revenue are directed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Nashik, deleting addition made in respect of bogus purchases and deleting penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on the addition made ... respect of bogus purchases. A.Y.2010-11 ITA No.203/PUN/2017 by Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Nashik dated 02.11.2016 in quantum appeal and ITA No.204/PUN/2017 by Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Nashik dated 04.11.2016 deleting penalty levied

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. B.V. Bio Corp Ltd., Pune

ITA 2330/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2220 & 2221/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak
Section 143(3)Section 148

Appeals) after considering the documents on record, facts of the case and various decisions cited by assessee, restricted the addition in respect of bogus purchases to 20% of such purchases. Against the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), both, the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before ... Revenue has challenged the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for assessment year 2009-10 in restricting the disallowance on account of bogus purchases to 20% by raising following grounds: “1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the Assessing

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. B.V. Bio Corp Ltd., Pune

ITA 2329/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2220 & 2221/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak
Section 143(3)Section 148

Appeals) after considering the documents on record, facts of the case and various decisions cited by assessee, restricted the addition in respect of bogus purchases to 20% of such purchases. Against the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), both, the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before ... Revenue has challenged the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for assessment year 2009-10 in restricting the disallowance on account of bogus purchases to 20% by raising following grounds: “1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the Assessing

B.V. Bio-Corp Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

ITA 2221/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2220 & 2221/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak
Section 143(3)Section 148

Appeals) after considering the documents on record, facts of the case and various decisions cited by assessee, restricted the addition in respect of bogus purchases to 20% of such purchases. Against the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), both, the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before ... Revenue has challenged the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for assessment year 2009-10 in restricting the disallowance on account of bogus purchases to 20% by raising following grounds: “1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the Assessing

B.V. Bio-Corp Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

ITA 2220/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2220 & 2221/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak
Section 143(3)Section 148

Appeals) after considering the documents on record, facts of the case and various decisions cited by assessee, restricted the addition in respect of bogus purchases to 20% of such purchases. Against the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), both, the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before ... Revenue has challenged the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for assessment year 2009-10 in restricting the disallowance on account of bogus purchases to 20% by raising following grounds: “1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the Assessing

Konel Corporation Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 12(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 488/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 271(1)(c)

case leading to the levy of penalty are that the assessing officer in these cases made disallowance of 25% on account of bogus purchases. Assessee has supplied the purchase vouchers and the payment where shown to have been made by banking channel. However drawing adverse inference for the nonproduction ... suppliers the assessing officer disallowed 25% of the bogus purchases. However the assessing officer did not doubt the sales. The assessing officer also noted that assessee has shown gross profit above 12.5%. The learned CIT-A confirmed the addition. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) was also levied. 3. Against

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Om Sai Traders, Mumbai

In the result the grounds in the Cross Objections raised

ITA 795/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannuand Shri Pawan Singhincome Tax Officer, Ward- M/S Om Sai Traders, 3(1), Room No.3, 6Th Floor, 31, Ashok Chambers, 2Nd Floor, Vs. B-Wing, Ashar I.T. Park, Devji Ratansey Marg, Road, No. 16Z, Broach Street, Wagale Estate, Mumbai-400009. Thane (W)-400604. Pan: Aaafo9152F Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 84/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2011-12) M/S Om Sai Traders, Income Tax Officer, Ward- 31, Ashok Chambers, 2Ndfloor, 3(1), Room No.3, 6Th Floor, Vs. Devji Ratansey Marg, Broach B-Wing, Ashar I.T. Park, Street, Mumbai-400009. Road, No. 16Z, Wagale Estate, Pan: Aaafo9152F Thane (W)-400604. Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari (Ar) Assessee By : Shri Shreyash Shah With Sh. Kunal Shah (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 01.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. The Appeal By The Revenue & The Cross Objection By The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Shreyash Shah with Sh. Kunal Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari (AR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

order of ITAT, Pune in ITA No. 1411-1415 dated 20.02.2015 in the case of M/s KoltePatil Developers Ltd. wherein 100% addition of bogus purchases was confirmed. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition ... case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in giving relief to the assessee to the extent of suppressed G.P. out of total bogus purchases even though – i. The assessee could not produce primary evidences like Octroi receipts, Delivery Challan etc. evidence to prove the genuineness of the purchases

Uni Design Jewellery India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1159/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13) बिाम/ Uni Design Jewellery India Dcit-Central Circle 1(2) Private Ltd., Mumbai. Plot No. 3, V. Uni Design House, Cepz Wicel, Opp. Seepz Main Gate, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacu3940J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Rakesh Mohan Revenue By: Shri. Rejeev Gubgodra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 For Assessment Year(S) 2011-12 & 2012- 13 Respectively, Are Directed Against Separate Appellate Order(S) Both Dated 18.12.2017 In Appeal Number(S) Cit(A)-47/Ap.11663/16-17 & Cit(A)-47/Ap.11664/16-17 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Separate Assessment Order(S) Both Dated 31.10.2016 Passed By

For Appellant: Shri. Rakesh MohanFor Respondent: Shri. Rejeev Gubgodra (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

adding an amount of Rs.1,21,345/- (14.55% of Rs.8,33,985/-) being the profit element embedded in the alleged bogus purchase. The appellant craves leave to add, omit or alter grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case ... assessee company was Rs. 140.17 crores. It was claimed that the assessee made purchases to the tune of Rs. 144.49 cores while alleged bogus purchases from M/s Mani Prabha Impex Private Limited were only to the tune of Rs. 8,33,985/- which is a meagre 0.05% of the amount

Uni Design Jewellery India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - Central Circle 1(2), Mumbai

In the result , appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1158/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13) बिाम/ Uni Design Jewellery India Dcit-Central Circle 1(2) Private Ltd., Mumbai. Plot No. 3, V. Uni Design House, Cepz Wicel, Opp. Seepz Main Gate, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacu3940J (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Rakesh Mohan Revenue By: Shri. Rejeev Gubgodra (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: These Two Appeals, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1158 & 1159/Mum/2018 For Assessment Year(S) 2011-12 & 2012- 13 Respectively, Are Directed Against Separate Appellate Order(S) Both Dated 18.12.2017 In Appeal Number(S) Cit(A)-47/Ap.11663/16-17 & Cit(A)-47/Ap.11664/16-17 Respectively, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Separate Assessment Order(S) Both Dated 31.10.2016 Passed By

For Appellant: Shri. Rakesh MohanFor Respondent: Shri. Rejeev Gubgodra (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

adding an amount of Rs.1,21,345/- (14.55% of Rs.8,33,985/-) being the profit element embedded in the alleged bogus purchase. The appellant craves leave to add, omit or alter grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case ... assessee company was Rs. 140.17 crores. It was claimed that the assessee made purchases to the tune of Rs. 144.49 cores while alleged bogus purchases from M/s Mani Prabha Impex Private Limited were only to the tune of Rs. 8,33,985/- which is a meagre 0.05% of the amount

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sanvik Engineers India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 3201/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. R.K Panda & Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148

assessment proceedings contain names of the above hawala dealers who have given bogus bills. Thus the assessee has reduced its taxable profits by introducing bogus purchase bills to the extent of Rs.1,58,47,973/-. In view of the above I have reasons to believe that a sum of Rs.1 ... material purchased and also to produce the parties in person. In absence of compliance of the same and observing that the assessee arranged bogus purchase bills with a motive to reduce its taxable profits and observing that the parties have admitted in the investigation by the VAT department of Maharashtra

Sunita Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 34(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 701/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. R.K Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 133Section 15(1)Section 41Section 68

revenue. However, from the order of the Tribunal dated 30-04-2010, we find that the Tribunal has deleted the additions on account of bogus purchases not only on the basis of stock statement i.e. reconciliation statement, but also in view of the other facts. The Tribunal records that

Punit Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 46(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4734/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. T. S. Kapoorita No. 4729/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 4730/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4731/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 4732/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 4733/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 4734/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Punit Jian, Vs Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/S Khaas Vihidam, 2740/1, Ward-46(2), Roshan Pura, Nai Sarak, New Delhi-110002 Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahpj1955C Assessee By : Sh. Pawan Saldi, Adv. & Sh. Maneesh Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2019 Order These Are Six Appeals Filed By Assessee Against Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, New Delhi All Dated 27.04.2018. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Similar Grounds Of Appeal & These Were Heard Together, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience A Common & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed. 3. For The Sake Of Completeness, The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By Assessee In Ita No. 4729/Del/2018 Are Reproduced Below:

For Appellant: Sh. Pawan Saldi, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 147

issue on merits, the ld. Authorized Representative submitted that the Assessing Officer had made additions in these cases on the basis of some alleged bogus purchases from certain group of persons. It was submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Tejua Rohit Kumar Kapadia ... that assessee had booked purchases in various years from the companies of Sh. Rajendra S. Jain and associates. Therefore, he held that these are bogus purchases and held these to be adjustment entries only and therefore, made addition as undisclosed investment

Punit Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 46(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4733/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. T. S. Kapoorita No. 4729/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 4730/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4731/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 4732/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 4733/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 4734/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Punit Jian, Vs Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/S Khaas Vihidam, 2740/1, Ward-46(2), Roshan Pura, Nai Sarak, New Delhi-110002 Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahpj1955C Assessee By : Sh. Pawan Saldi, Adv. & Sh. Maneesh Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2019 Order These Are Six Appeals Filed By Assessee Against Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, New Delhi All Dated 27.04.2018. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Similar Grounds Of Appeal & These Were Heard Together, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience A Common & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed. 3. For The Sake Of Completeness, The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By Assessee In Ita No. 4729/Del/2018 Are Reproduced Below:

For Appellant: Sh. Pawan Saldi, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 147

issue on merits, the ld. Authorized Representative submitted that the Assessing Officer had made additions in these cases on the basis of some alleged bogus purchases from certain group of persons. It was submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Tejua Rohit Kumar Kapadia ... that assessee had booked purchases in various years from the companies of Sh. Rajendra S. Jain and associates. Therefore, he held that these are bogus purchases and held these to be adjustment entries only and therefore, made addition as undisclosed investment

Punit Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 46(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4732/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. T. S. Kapoorita No. 4729/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 4730/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4731/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 4732/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 4733/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 4734/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Punit Jian, Vs Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/S Khaas Vihidam, 2740/1, Ward-46(2), Roshan Pura, Nai Sarak, New Delhi-110002 Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahpj1955C Assessee By : Sh. Pawan Saldi, Adv. & Sh. Maneesh Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2019 Order These Are Six Appeals Filed By Assessee Against Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, New Delhi All Dated 27.04.2018. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Similar Grounds Of Appeal & These Were Heard Together, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience A Common & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed. 3. For The Sake Of Completeness, The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By Assessee In Ita No. 4729/Del/2018 Are Reproduced Below:

For Appellant: Sh. Pawan Saldi, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 147

issue on merits, the ld. Authorized Representative submitted that the Assessing Officer had made additions in these cases on the basis of some alleged bogus purchases from certain group of persons. It was submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Tejua Rohit Kumar Kapadia ... that assessee had booked purchases in various years from the companies of Sh. Rajendra S. Jain and associates. Therefore, he held that these are bogus purchases and held these to be adjustment entries only and therefore, made addition as undisclosed investment

Punit Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 46(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4731/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. T. S. Kapoorita No. 4729/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 4730/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4731/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 4732/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 4733/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 4734/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Punit Jian, Vs Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/S Khaas Vihidam, 2740/1, Ward-46(2), Roshan Pura, Nai Sarak, New Delhi-110002 Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahpj1955C Assessee By : Sh. Pawan Saldi, Adv. & Sh. Maneesh Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2019 Order These Are Six Appeals Filed By Assessee Against Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, New Delhi All Dated 27.04.2018. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Similar Grounds Of Appeal & These Were Heard Together, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience A Common & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed. 3. For The Sake Of Completeness, The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By Assessee In Ita No. 4729/Del/2018 Are Reproduced Below:

For Appellant: Sh. Pawan Saldi, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 147

issue on merits, the ld. Authorized Representative submitted that the Assessing Officer had made additions in these cases on the basis of some alleged bogus purchases from certain group of persons. It was submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Tejua Rohit Kumar Kapadia ... that assessee had booked purchases in various years from the companies of Sh. Rajendra S. Jain and associates. Therefore, he held that these are bogus purchases and held these to be adjustment entries only and therefore, made addition as undisclosed investment

Punit Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 46(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4730/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. T. S. Kapoorita No. 4729/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 4730/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Ita No. 4731/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 4732/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 4733/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 4734/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sh. Punit Jian, Vs Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/S Khaas Vihidam, 2740/1, Ward-46(2), Roshan Pura, Nai Sarak, New Delhi-110002 Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahpj1955C Assessee By : Sh. Pawan Saldi, Adv. & Sh. Maneesh Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2019 Order These Are Six Appeals Filed By Assessee Against Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, New Delhi All Dated 27.04.2018. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Similar Grounds Of Appeal & These Were Heard Together, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience A Common & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed. 3. For The Sake Of Completeness, The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By Assessee In Ita No. 4729/Del/2018 Are Reproduced Below:

For Appellant: Sh. Pawan Saldi, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 147

issue on merits, the ld. Authorized Representative submitted that the Assessing Officer had made additions in these cases on the basis of some alleged bogus purchases from certain group of persons. It was submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Tejua Rohit Kumar Kapadia ... that assessee had booked purchases in various years from the companies of Sh. Rajendra S. Jain and associates. Therefore, he held that these are bogus purchases and held these to be adjustment entries only and therefore, made addition as undisclosed investment