“bogus purchases”

Khilari Infrastructure Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-15(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

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

learned CIT(A) for the same assessment year. 2. Assessment order in the above cases were reopened pursuant to information received for assessee making bogus purchases. The Assessing Officer and learned CIT(A) have made an addition of 12.5% of the bogus purchases. Against this order, the assessee has filed ... 6354/Mum/2017 for A.Y. 2010-11 vide order dated 31.12.2018, this ITAT had reduced the addition from 12.5% to 6.% of the bogus purchases. Hence, learned Counsel of the assessee submitted that disallowance in this case should be restricted to 6% of the bogus purchases. 4. per contra, learned Departmental Representative

Precision Contaneurs Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 13(1)(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Precision Containuers Ltd. Dcit-13(1)(2) 3Rd Floor, Mittal Tower, B Wing 401, Court Chamber Vs. S.V. Road, Borivali (W) Nariman Point Mumbai-400 092 Mumbai-400 021

issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31/03/2015 after the AO received information DDIT(Inv), Mumbai that the assessee is beneficiary of bogus purchases to the tune of Rs. 3,50,00,000/- made from Lakhan Traders Pvt.Ltd. The AO issued show cause notice to the assessee ... thus justified the addition at the rate of 12.5% on the ground that the AO has only added profit embedded in the said bogus purchases and not added the entire bogus purchases. 5. After hearing both the parties and perused the material available on record, we observed that the assessee

Imi Alloys Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhanimi Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit 5(1)(1) C/O. D.C. Bothra & Co. Llp (Ca) Aayakar Bhavan, (Formerly Known As D.C. Bothra & Co.) 297, 5Th Floor, M.K. Road, Vs. Tardeo Road, Wille Mansion, Mumbai 400 020 1St Floor, Opp Bank Of India, Nana Chowk, Mumbai – 400 007 Pan – Aabci5571L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mrs. Aditi Shroff & Shri Harish Sharma, A.Rs Respondent By: Shri Abi Rama Kartikiyan, D.R Date Of Hearing: 28.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.04.2019 O R D E R Per Ravish Sood, Jm The Present Appeal Filed The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-10, Mumbai, Dated 09.10.2017 For A.Y. 2011-12, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O Under Sec.143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘I.T. Act’), Dated 01.03.2016. The Assessee Assailing The Order Of The Cit(A) Has Raised Before Us The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That On Facts Of The Case & In Law The Ld. C.I.T.(Appeals) Has Erred In Upholding The Validity Of The Reassessment Proceeding Initiated U/S. 147 By Issue Of Notice U/S. 148 On Wrong Facts & In Unlawful Manner.

assesses own case for A.Y 2009-10 & A.Y 2010-11 had restricted the addition to 12.5% of the aggregate value of the bogus purchases as reduced by the gross profit rate already declared by the assessee on the said transactions. On a specific query by the bench as to whether ... rate of 4% involved in the case of the assessee had exorbitantly worked out the disallowance in respect of the alleged bogus purchases @ 12.5% of the aggregate value of such purchases. Apart there from, the ld. A.R in order to fortify her contention that the GP rate for the year

Vega Jeweldiam Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. - 13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Hri Pawan Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharvega Jeweldiam Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Circle-13(3)(2), Unit No.1108, Ii Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, A Wing, The Capital, G Block Churchgate, Plot, 70, Bharat Nagar, Mumbai-400021. Vs. Bandra (East),Mumbai-400051. Pan: Aaacd9989Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Vijay Kumar Biyani (Ar) Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of Income-Tax Act (‘Act’) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-

reason to interfere with the findings and the decision arrived at by the Ld.CIT(A) in estimating the Gross Profit at 4% of the bogus purchases as against 8% estimated by the Assessing Officer. Thus, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) for all these Assessment Years

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 23(1), Mumbai vs. Calvin Properties, Mumbai

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Sh. N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6561, 6562 & 6564/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14)

Department and the reopening was done within four years from the end of the relevant A.Y. The reopening of assessment on the basis of bogus purchases is held valid by the Hon'ble Bombay Court in the case of Hitesh R. Shah (2013) 35 taxmann.com 474 even though the original

M/S. Pacific Harish Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. Comm. of Income Tax - 10(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Appeal No. CIT(A)-17/IT-31/15-16 dated 15/06/2017 qua confirmation of certain additions on account of alleged bogus purchases. 2.1 Brief facts are that the assessee being resident corporate entity stated to be engaged in manufacturing of fabrics was subjected to 2 M/s. Pacific ... supplier to confirm the transactions. Keeping in view the totality of all these factors, we restrict the impugned additions to 12.5% of alleged bogus purchase of Rs.18,03,072/- which comes to Rs.2,25,384/-. The balance addition stands deleted 5. The appeal stands partly allowed. Order pronounced

DCIT, CC-3(2), Cr-3, Mumbai vs. Cms Computers Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.4231/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2009-10) Dcit-Cc-3(2) M/S. Cms Computers Ltd. Room No.1913, 19Th Floor बनाम/ C/O. Kaycee Ind. Compound, Air India Building 70-Lake Road Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-21. Bhandup-(W), Mumbai-78.. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacc-1758-Z (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Appellant By : Abhi Rama Kartikeyan - Ld.Dr Respondent By : None सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 20/03/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 03/04/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year [In Short Referred To As ‘Ay’] 2009-10 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-51/It-62/2015-16 Dated 22/03/2017 Qua Certain Relief Provided To The Assessee On Account Of Alleged Bogus Purchases. None Has Appeared For Assessee & No Valid Adjournment Application Is On Record. Left With No Option, We Proceed To Dispose-Off The Same On The Basis Of Material On Record & After Hearing Ld. Departmental

referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Appeal No. CIT(A)-51/IT-62/2015-16 dated 22/03/2017 qua certain relief provided to the assessee on account of alleged bogus purchases. None has appeared for assessee and no valid adjournment application is on record. Left with no option, we proceed to dispose-off the same ... Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax – 3(2), Mumbai [AO] wherein the assessee was saddled with additions of Rs.78.38 Lacs on account of alleged bogus purchases. The original return filed on 30/09/2009 was assessed in scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) on 27/12/2011. 2.2 The reassessment proceedings got triggered pursuant to receipt

Ketan Gokuldas Badiani, Mumbai vs. ITO 33(2)(2), Mumbai

Appeals stand dismissed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Appeal No. CIT(A)-45/ITO-33(2)(2)/ITA-27/2015-16 dated 27/02/2018 wherein the sole issue involved is addition on account of alleged bogus purchases. 2.1 Facts leading to the same are that assessee being resident individual engaged in dealing in leather items under proprietorship concern namely M/s Royal Belts ... impugned AY on 23/03/2015 wherein the income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.57.88 Lacs after sole addition on account of alleged bogus purchases for Rs.55.68 Lacs. The original return of income filed by the assessee on 25/01/2010 at Rs.2.20 Lacs was processed u/s.143(1). 2.2 The re-assessment proceedings

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Phoneix Foils Private Limited, Mumbai

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Sh. N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4385/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

ld.CIT(4) erred in directing the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 61,94,812/- made on account of bogus purchases. (2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(4) erred in directing the AO to delete the addition ... made on account of commission charges computed @ 1% of bogus purchases. (3) The Appellant craves leave to amend or alter any gourd or add new ground which may be necessary. 2. As per the facts of the present case, the assessee had filed his return of income for the year

Shri Chandan Jangid, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. - 31(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjeet Singh

ground No.1 is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.89,981/- by Ld. CIT(A) as made by the AO on account of bogus purchases from Roopam Impex. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 30.09.2009 declaring an income of Rs.77 ... were not served and returned by the postal authority with the remark “not known”. Under these circumstances though the assessee was indulged in bogus purchases same can not be brought to tax @ 100%. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that it would be reasonable and fair that

Sahyadri Construction, Thane vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3, Thane

In the result, ground no.2 of

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhansahyadri Construction Dcit Circle-3, 1, Sheetal Chhaya, Near Pratap Room No. 2, ‘B’ Wing, Cinema, Kolbad Road, 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Thane (W)-400601. Road No.16Z , Wagale Ind. Vs. Pan: Aaefs7999E Estate, Thane-400604. Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi (C.A) Respondent By : Shri P. Kumar (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 29.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.03.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act

issued to the assessee on the basis of information received from Sale Tax Department, Mumbai about the entities who were providing entries of bogus purchases. The assessee was one of the beneficiaries, who has provided such entries. No reply was filed by assessee in response to the notice under section ... assessment was completed under section 143(3) on 13.03.2014. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order noted that the assessee is beneficiary of bogus purchases of Rs. 10,63,920/- from ITA No. 375 Mum 2018-Sahyadri Construction. Samay Sales Corporation and Rs. 12,93,952/- from Maulik Steel

Sun Jewels Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Eleganza Jewellery Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. DCIT - 11(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Sun Jewels Pvt. Ltd. Dy. Cit Circle-11(2)(2), (Formerly Known As M/S Vs. Room No. 421, 4Th Floor, Eleganza Jewellery Pvt. Ltd.) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Unit No. 102-103, Sdf-Iv, Road, Mumbai-400020. Seepz, Sez, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400096. Pan No. Aabce3519L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Dy. Cit Circle-11(2)(2), M/S Sun Jewels Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 421, 4Th Floor, Vs. (Formerly Known As M/S Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Eleganza Jewellery Pvt. Mumbai-400020. Ltd.) Unit No. 102-103, Sdf-Iv, Seepz, Sez, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400096. Pan No. Aabce3519L Appellant Respondent

cheque payment by getting the sales bill issued by Shri Rajendra Jain and his associates to those concerns (Block E) interested in taking bogus purchase bills for regularizing their books of accounts. Further, he clarified that he does not know the actual reason for importing the rough diamonds ... supplies and receipts of payments later on. It is argued that it is not the case of the AO that on the alleged bogus purchases, the materials have not gone into production process as stock summary so produced with co-relation have not been adversely commented upon

M/S.Cooltech Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-18(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

Assessing Officer received information from DIT (Inv.) and Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra, informing that the assessee has taken bogus purchase entries from various dealers during these Assessment Years. In the course of the re-assessment proceedings the assessee was required to prove the genuineness of the purchases made ... Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Seth [356 ITR 451] sustained the estimation of profit on alleged bogus purchases @12.5% observing as under: - “4 3 The submissions and case laws relied by the Ld. counsel for the appellant have been carefully considered. When the expenditure has been

M/S.Cooltech Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-18(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are dismissed

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

Assessing Officer received information from DIT (Inv.) and Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra, informing that the assessee has taken bogus purchase entries from various dealers during these Assessment Years. In the course of the re-assessment proceedings the assessee was required to prove the genuineness of the purchases made ... Gujarat High Court in the case of Simit P. Seth [356 ITR 451] sustained the estimation of profit on alleged bogus purchases @12.5% observing as under: - “4 3 The submissions and case laws relied by the Ld. counsel for the appellant have been carefully considered. When the expenditure has been

Inter Carat Jewellery Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Comm. of Income Tax - 10(1)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K. Pradhan

learned CIT(Appeal) erred in confirming disallowance at 12.5% of total purchases of Rs.7,94,253/- made from M/s Adi Impex as bogus purchases. However, the learned CIT (Appeal) ought to have appreciated that the appellant had furnished full and complete details of the purchases and had discharged the onus ... basis of information received by the A.O from the office of the DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai, that the assessee had obtained accommodation entries of bogus purchases from various concerns of Rajendra Jain Group/Sanjay Chaudhari Group/Dharmichand Jain Group which were engaged in the business of providing accommodation entries, the case

Dy.CIT, Circle-3, Kalyan, Mumbai vs. Pawan Estates, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri N.K.Pradhandeputy Commissioner Of M/S Pawan Estates, Income Tax, Circle-3, Kalyan, 11, Siddhi Vinayak Sankul, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Vs. 1St Floor, Shivaji Path, Murbad Road, Kalyan (W) Kalyan (W)- 421 301 Dist. Thane – 421 301 Pan – Aajfp4181C (Appellant) (Respondent)

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made ,on account of bogus purchases of Rs. 78,48,076/- without appreciating the findings of the A.O on this issue in his remand report that the assessee