← 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

Chaganlal Pukhraj Parmar, Mumbai vs. ITO 29(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 5588/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Awanghi Gimson-Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

Officer-29(1)(2), Mumbai [AO] wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.281.78 Lacs after sole addition on account of alleged bogus purchases for Rs.278.12 Lacs as against returned income of Rs.3.66 Lacs e-filed by the assessee on 22/09/2009 which was processed u/s 143(1). Besides ... validity of reassessment proceedings, the addition of Rs.278.12 Lacs as made by Ld. AO on account of alleged bogus purchases is the sole subject matter of present appeal before us. 2.2 The reassessment proceedings got triggered pursuant to receipt of certain information from DGIT (Investigation) / Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra wherein

Mangilal Jain, Darjeeling vs. ITO, Ward - 3(3), Darjeeling

Appeal is allowed

ITA 729/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2014-15 Mangilal Jain Income Tax Officer, बनाम / C/O Advocate Pradip Ward-3(3), Nr. Lal V/S. Lakhotia, 2Nd Floor, Metro Kothi, Darjeeling Plaza, Sf Road, Siliguri-734005 [Pan No.Afkpj 4178 D] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Dhiraj Lakhotia, A.R अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 05-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Siliguri’S Order Dated 22.03.2018 Passed In Case No.69/Cit(A)/Slg/2016-17, Involving Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised In The Instant Appeal Seeks To Reverse Both The Lower Authorities Findings Treating His Short Term Capital Loss (Stcl) Arising From Sale Of Shares After Payment Of Security Transaction Tax (Stt), Amounting To ₹1,92,320/- As Bogus Unexplained Cash Credits. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Under:- “4. Decision :- I Have Perused The Assessment Order, The Grounds Of Appeal & The Submissions Made By The Ld.. A/R On Behalf Of The Appellant. My Observations & Findings Are As Under :- 4.1. The Present Appeal Emanates After Disallowing Rs. 11,92,320/- Arising Out Of Shares Transaction & Treated The Same As Bogus. In This Case The Assessee Purchased 32000 Shares Of Global Infratech & Finance Ltd. Through Eureka Stock & Shares Broking Services Limited @ Rs. 77.37 Per Share Aggregating To Rs. 24,79,714/- On 11.02.2014 & Further Sold The

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69

such as time of contract, trade number, transaction details etc and payments were also made in cash by the assessee against such sham and bogus purchase with the objective of introducing by manipulating tax free exempt long term capital gains u/s 10(38) of the Act leading to escapement ... Investment and Consultancy Limited in assessment year 2005-06 have become conclusive having attained finality, the sales in consequence thereof the sham and bogus purchases cannot be accepted as genuine. The assessee has explained that the purchases were backed with contract notes of the brokers and payments were made

DCIT, Cir-26(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Chien Hsing Tannery, Kolkata

ITA 1629/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T. A No. 1629/Kol/2017 A.Y 2012-13 A.C.I.T, Cir-26(1), Kolkata V/S. M/S. Chien Hsing Tannery Pan: Aaefc7201R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. CIT, ld.DRFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Khanna, FCA &
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 147

instant appeal seeks to reverse the CIT(A)’s findings partly upholding the Assessing Officer’s action treating the assessee’s alleged bogus purchase amounting to Rs.250,21,568/- to the extent of gross profit estimation @ 5.83%. The CIT(A)’s detailed discussion to this effect reads as under:- Assessment ... appellant has taken following grounds of appeal: 1.For that the Assessing Officer was quite unjustified by disallowing purchases of Rs.2,50,21,568/­ as bogus purchases though the supporting evidences were given to the Assessing Officer during the course of scrutiny. 2. For that Assessing Officer has framed the Assessment

Jyoti Architectural Products Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT- RG- 4(2)(2), Mumbai

Appeals are dismissed, accordingly

ITA 2804/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.2804/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Jyoti Architectural Products P. Ltd. Dcit-Range 4(2)(2) बनाम A-111, Sagar Tech Plaza नाम नाम/ नाम Mumbai. Andheri Kurla Road, Sakinaka Vs. Andheri East, Mumbai-400 072. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcj-5792-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (ू"यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Anil Thakrar-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Choudhary Arun Kumar Singh -Ld.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

Appeal No. CIT(A)- 9/Cir.4/188/2015-16 dated 27/03/2018. The only issue under appeal is addition of Rs.14,33,564/- on account of alleged bogus purchases for which the assessee has raised following ground of appeal: - The Ld. CIT (A) is erred in confirming ... reassessment proceedings were triggered upon receipt of certain information from Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra that the assessee stood beneficiary of alleged bogus purchases aggregating to Rs.14.33 Lacs stated to be made from 3 parties as per details given in para 2 of the quantum assessment order. Accordingly, notice

M/S.Authentiques Eyewear Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(1), Thane

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

ITA 826/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Authentique Eye The Income Tax Officer, Wear P. Ltd. Row House Ward 4(1), Thane. Vs. No. 1, Opp. Paras Yamaha Centre, Ambadi Cross Road, Vasai Road, Thane- 401202. Pan No. Aaica1157H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Vinay N. Bhoir, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Satishchandra Rajore, Dr Date Of Hearing : 08/05/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 13/05/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Vinay N. Bhoir, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Satishchandra Rajore, DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148

Income Tax Act, 1961 having reason to believe M/s Authentique Eye 2 that appellant had made bogus purchases during the said year on the basis of information received from the Sales Tax Department. 2. The Assessing Officer has passed ex parte order due to non-attendance of the assessee ... assessed the income of the appellant at Rs.40,27,381/- with addition of Rs37,17,321/- on account of bogus purchase. 3. Due to ex parte order the case could not be properly represented before Assessing Officer to explain and justify such purchase. Further Assessing Officer has not considered various

ITO WD 33(2)(5), Mumbai vs. Paresh S. Sanghvi (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4158/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer Paresh S. Sanghvi (Huf) 33(2)(5), Room No. 611, 6Th Vs. B-307, Highway Park E- Floor, Bldg. No. C-12, 3, Thakur Complex, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Kandivali (E), Mumbai- Bandra Kurla Complex, 400101. Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400051. Pan No. Aaiph2161F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. G.C. Lalka, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Chaitanya Anjaria, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 148

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made in respect of bogus purchases especially when CIT(A) has clearly found that the assessee did not substantiate the claim of genuine purchases. ii. On the facts ... circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in determining the profit percentage at the rate of 4% of bogus purchases, while the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the purchases claimed. iii. The appellant prays that the order

Anantrai Kar, Mumbai vs. ITO 32(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2005/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Anantraikar, A/304, Ito-32(1)(1). Viranti Tower, Sv Road, Vs. Dahisar (E), Mumbai-68

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Satishchandra Rajore, DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

Court in the case of CIT v. Simit P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj), the AO estimated the profit @ 12.5% on the total bogus purchases of Rs.24,88,08,481/- which comes to Rs.3,11,01,060/-. 3.1 On perusal of the balance sheet the AO observed that

Kishanlal Khetaramji Vishnoi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer War 19(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4124/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Soodkishanlal Khetaramji Vishnoi The Income Tax Officer 403-A, 4Th Floor, 19(2)(2), Kaushtubh Park, Hospital, Room No. 214, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Borivali (W), Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai – 400092 Mumbai – 400007

For Appellant: Shri D.B. Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chaitnya Anjaria, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234B

from the DGIT (Inv.) Wing, Mumbai, that the name of the assessee had figured in the list of the beneficiaries who had procured bogus purchase bills from certain hawala parties, his case was reopened under Sec.147 of the I-T Act. 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings ... dated 11.02.2019), had held, that the addition as regards the unproved/bogus purchases was to be made by bringing the G.P rate of such bogus purchases, at the same rate of the other purchases. In sum and substance, it was the P a g e | 5 ITA No.4124/Mum/2018

Income Tax Officer-27(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Kamlesh T Bavad, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3974/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Soodincome Tax Officer-27 (2)(1) Shri Kamlesh T. Bavad R. No.413, 4Th Floor, Tower No.6, R. No. 9, Laxmi Bhuvan, Vashi Railway Station Complex, 85A, Oghadbhai Lane, Vs. Vashi, Navi Mumbai – 400 703 Ghatkoper (E), Mumbai – 77

For Appellant: Shri Chaitnya Anjaria, D.RFor Respondent: Shri Dalpat Shah, A.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147

facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.41,22,915/- on account of bogus purchases, without appreciating the fact that the assessee had failed to produce bills, vouchers and other documentary evidences in support of his claim and without considering ... case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in estimating the profit from hawala purchases by disallowing only 12.5% of the bogus purchases, as even the basic onus of producing transport bills, delivery challans, etc were not fulfilled by the assessee . 3. The appellant pray that the order

Shri Bhuraram Virdaji Choudhary (Proprietor of M/S.Gaurava Steel), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4147/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood (Jm)

These are appeals by the assessee wherein the assessee is aggrieved that learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining 12.5% disallowance on account of bogus purchases as under : A.Y. 2010-11 14,78,502/- A.Y. 2011-12 15,57,393/- 2. The Assessing Officer in these cases has made ... addition on account of bogus purchases. 3. Upon assessee’s appeal learned CIT(A) confirmed the same. Against the above order assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 4. We have heard both the counsel and perused the records. Upon careful consideration we find that the assessee has provided

Dhiraj Narottam Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(1)(4)/30(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 837/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2019AY 2011-12

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

appeal by the assessee wherein the assessee is aggrieved that learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining 30% disallowance on account of bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 42,56,507/-. 2. The Assessing Officer in this case has made 100% addition on account of bogus purchase amounting ... find that in this case the sales have not been doubted. It is settled law that when sales are not doubted, 100% disallowance for bogus purchase cannot be done. The rationale being no sales is possible without actual purchases. This proposition is supported from Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court decision

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Rds Construction Co., Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2733/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2731 To 2733/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Kolhapur. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Rds Construction Co., 233/3, Malati Towers, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur-416003. Pan : Aabfr4457M ……""यथ" / Respondent Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Ghai Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Three Appeals Under Consideration. Ita Nos.2731 & 2732/Pun/2016 Filed By The Revenue Are Against The Common Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur Dated 26.09.2016 U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2010-11 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghai
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Sheets. There was a survey action u/s 133A of the Act on 04.01.2013. The survey action resulted in discovery of booking of bogus purchases. The assessee offered Rs.2,22,00,712/- as additional income for the assessment year 2008-09 and Rs.1,61,93,716/- for the assessment year ... Explaining the above facts of the case deviating from the said ground (supra), ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this a case of bogus purchases made from the suppliers whose names are appeared in the Website maintained by the Sales Tax Department of Maharashtra Government. During the survey action

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Rds Construction Co., Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2732/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2731 To 2733/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Kolhapur. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Rds Construction Co., 233/3, Malati Towers, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur-416003. Pan : Aabfr4457M ……""यथ" / Respondent Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Ghai Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Three Appeals Under Consideration. Ita Nos.2731 & 2732/Pun/2016 Filed By The Revenue Are Against The Common Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur Dated 26.09.2016 U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2010-11 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghai
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Sheets. There was a survey action u/s 133A of the Act on 04.01.2013. The survey action resulted in discovery of booking of bogus purchases. The assessee offered Rs.2,22,00,712/- as additional income for the assessment year 2008-09 and Rs.1,61,93,716/- for the assessment year ... Explaining the above facts of the case deviating from the said ground (supra), ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this a case of bogus purchases made from the suppliers whose names are appeared in the Website maintained by the Sales Tax Department of Maharashtra Government. During the survey action

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Rds Construction Co., Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2731/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2731 To 2733/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Kolhapur. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Rds Construction Co., 233/3, Malati Towers, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur-416003. Pan : Aabfr4457M ……""यथ" / Respondent Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Ghai Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Three Appeals Under Consideration. Ita Nos.2731 & 2732/Pun/2016 Filed By The Revenue Are Against The Common Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur Dated 26.09.2016 U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2010-11 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghai
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

Sheets. There was a survey action u/s 133A of the Act on 04.01.2013. The survey action resulted in discovery of booking of bogus purchases. The assessee offered Rs.2,22,00,712/- as additional income for the assessment year 2008-09 and Rs.1,61,93,716/- for the assessment year ... Explaining the above facts of the case deviating from the said ground (supra), ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that this a case of bogus purchases made from the suppliers whose names are appeared in the Website maintained by the Sales Tax Department of Maharashtra Government. During the survey action

M/S.Fine Metal (India), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 17(1)(4), Mumbai

ITA 4155/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Soodita Nos.4155 To 4157/Mum/2018 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12) M/S Fine Metal (India) The Income Tax Officer Begmohamed Building Ward 17(1)(4) 45, Kolsa Street, Pydhunie Room No. 115, 1St Floor, Vs. Mumbai – 400003 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020 Pan – Aaaff6587B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Dilip B. Sanghvi, A.R Respondent By: Shri Chaitnya Anjaria, D.R Date Of Hearing: 01.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 08.05.2019 O R D E R Per Ravish Sood, Jm The Present Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Respective Orders Of The Cit(A)-56, Mumbai, For A.Y. 2009-10, 2010- 11 & 2011-12, Dated 19.03.2018, Which In Turn Arises From The Respective Assessment Orders Passed Under Sec.143(3) R.W.S Sec.147 Of The I.T Act For The Said Respective Years. As A Common Issued Is Involved In The Aforementioned Appeals, Therefore, The Same Are Being Taken Up & Disposed Off By Way Of A Consolidated Order. We Shall First Advert To The Appeal Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2009-10. The Assessee Assailing The Order Of The Cit(A) Has Raised Before Us The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri Dilip B. Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chaitnya Anjaria, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234B

from the DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai, that the name of the assessee had figured in the list of the beneficiaries who had obtained bogus purchase bills from certain hawala parties, its case was reopened under Sec.147 of the I.T Act. 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was observed ... No.4155 to 4157/Mum/2018 A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2011-12 M/s Fine Metal (India) Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(1)(4) bogus purchases. It was submitted by him that the assessee had substantiated the genuineness of the purchase transactions before the lower authorities. It was averred

Mr. Virmabhai A Patel, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-19(3)(5), Mumbai

Appeals are dismissed, accordingly

ITA 4121/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Soodmr. Virmabhai A. Patel The Income Tax Officer 159/6, Mistry Building, 19(3)(5), 2Nd Kumbharwada Lane, 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Vs. Mumbai – 400004 Tardev Road, Mumbai – 400 007

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Chaitnya Anjaria, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147

aforesaid observations, it was concluded by the A.O that the assessee had purchased the goods from the open/grey market and had only procured bogus purchase bills from the aforementioned parties. In the backdrop of his aforesaid deliberations, the A.O made an addition of Rs.15 ... case of the assessee before them, who was a trader, was to be worked out by bringing the G.P. rate of such bogus purchases at the same rate as that of the other genuine purchases. 8. We thus respectfully following the aforesaid judgment of the Hon‟ble High Court, restore

Mr.Kamlesh Amarlal Kewalramani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Kalyan

ITA 4116/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Makhija &For Respondent: Shri Chaitnya Anjaria, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

from the Maharashtra Sales Tax Department, Mumbai, that the name of the assessee had figured in the list of the beneficiaries who had obtained bogus purchase bills from certain hawala parties, his case was reopened under Sec.147 of the I-T Act. 3. In the course of the assessment proceedings ... same substantiates the fact that the material/goods under consideration was purchased by the assessee. In fact, in case the assessee would had debited bogus purchases only with an intent to suppress its true income, then the same would had witnessed a sharp decline in the G.P rate during the year

Shri Ishraram G Choudhary, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1)(5), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4106/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Soodshri Ishraram G. Choudhari The Income Tax Officer Proprietor Of M/S Shree Ramdev 19(1)(5), Metal (India) 71, 1St Floor, Mumbai Vs. Ram Mandir Bldg. Bhandari Street, Near Goldeval, Mumbai – 400 004 Pan – Afzpc9784P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh K. Chothani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Chaitnya Anjaria, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

received from the Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra, that the name of the assessee had figured in the list of the persons who had procured bogus purchase bills from certain hawala parties, his case was reopened under Sec.147 of the I-T Act. 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings ... 4106/Mum/2018 A.Y. 2009-10 Shri Ishraram G. Choudhari Vs. The Income Tax Officer-19(1)(5) of the aggregate value of the aforesaid bogus purchases of Rs.76,68,022/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) not being impressed with

Amit G. Vanani, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 4569/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 4569/Mum/2017 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2007-08) Shri Amit G. Vanani, The Dy. Commissioner Of 112, The Jewel, Tata Road Income Tax, Circle-4(4), No. 2, Opera House, Mumbai- Room No. 409, 4Th Floor, Vs. 400 004 Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaipv6300L अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri B.V. Jhaveri, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri B.S. Bist, Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08-05-2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08-05-2019

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Jain are operating and managing 70 benami concerns in the names of their employees through which they provide accommodation entries of unsecured loans and bogus purchases to various beneficiaries. Above mentioned assessee is one of the beneficiaries assessed in this charge who have taken accommodation entries amounting Rs.1

Shri Rameshkumar Daulatraj Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4192/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 4192/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2011-12) Shri Rameshkumar Daulatraj The Income Tax Officer, Mehta Ward-19(3)(1) Room No. 6-A, 28/30, Dr. Room No. 219, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Wilson Street, V.P. Road, Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 004 Mumbai-400 007 .. (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Abwpm8850F अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Chaitanya Anjaria, Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07-05-2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 07-05-2019

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya Anjaria, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

remains for adjudication is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition made by AO applying the profit rate at 12.5% of the bogus purchase. 5. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is running proprietary firm by the name of M/s Vintex Steel & Engg. Co. which is engaged ... applied. For this he filed statement of purchases made from bogus parties and consequent profit rate shown by the assessee on these bogus purchases and the details are as under: - “Sale Excluding VAT 7137429.61 Purchase Excluding VAT/ CST 6965878.40 Gross Profit 171551.21 Gross Profit Rate 2.40” From the above