← 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

Labdhi Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO-WD-13(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2966/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Shri Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Pratap Singh
Section 147

basis of 2 Labdhi Enterprises information received from DGIT (Inv.), Mumbai, that the assessee has availed accommodation entries by way of bogus purchases of ` 94,90,344, the Assessing Officer re–opened the assessment for the impugned assessment year under section 147 of the Income–tax Act, 1961 (for short ... disallowance of 12.5% of the non–genuine purchases. Thus, ultimately, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment by making addition of 12.5% of the bogus purchases, which worked out to ` 11,86,299. The assessee unsuccessfully challenged the aforesaid addition before learned Commissioner (Appeals). 4. The learned Authorised Representative submitted

Raju Kishinchand Mahtani, Mumbai vs. Erstwhile ACIT 19(3), Presently ACIT 23(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 284/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Sinha, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

raised by the assessee in all the three appeals is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition @ 25% of the alleged bogus purchases as made by the AO. In ITA No. 284/Mum/2018, the assessee has also challenged the enhancement of addition to the extent of Rs.4 ... which has happened due to the fact that amount M/s. Raju Kishinchand Mahtani of bogus purchases were taken by the Ld. CIT(A) at Rs.53,86,277/- as against Rs.35,17,524/- by the AO. 3. The ITA No 284/Mum/2018 is taken up first. The facts in brief that

Capital Controls Private Limited (Now Known As Capco Water Sollutions Private Limited), Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 9(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 7433/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Hitesh Shah- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Abhi Ram Kartikeyan - Ld.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Appeal No. CIT(A)-16/IT-309/ACIT.9(2)(1)/2015-16 dated 25/10/2017 qua confirmation of certain additions on account of alleged bogus purchases. 3.1 Facts as emanating from quantum assessment order dated 19/03/2015 for AY 2009-10 are that the assessee being resident corporate entity stated to be engaged in production ... read with section 147. The income of the assessee was determined at Rs.226.52 Lacs after sole addition on account of alleged bogus purchases for Rs.111.27 Lacs as against returned income of Rs.115.25 Lacs filed by the assessee on 30/09/2009 which was processed u/s 143(1). 3.2 The reassessment proceedings

Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Vijay Vision Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed in the manner stated above

ITA 4813/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) बिाम/ Ito -13(3)(3) M/S. Vijay Vision Room No. 227 Private Ltd, 2Nd Floor Spec House, V. Aayakar Bhawan Ramchandra Lane M K Road Extension, Kachpada, Mumbai-400020 Malad (W), Mumbai- 400064 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacv2144B (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Miss. Deepika Arora (Dr) Assessee By: Shri. Bharat K Patel सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 4813/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 24.04.2017 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-21/Ito-13(3)(3)/It-107/2016-17, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-21, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Assessment Order Dated 17.03.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2010-11. I.T.A. No.4813/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Shri. Bharat K PatelFor Respondent: Miss. Deepika Arora (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

attained finality. The reasons as were recorded by the Revenue stipulated that the assessee has availed accommodation entries from persons indulging in issuance of bogus purchase and sale bills without actual delivery of goods. The sales tax department has stated that purchases to the tune ... made by the assessee are bogus purchases. This is the background which led to recording of reasons for reopening of the concluded assessment by AO u/s 147 and consequently issuance of notice u/s 148 dated 24.03.2015 by the AO to the assessee, which reasons were furnished to the assessee

Sejal Gems P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3872/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Neel Khandelwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Singh,D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Thereafter, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act by recording the reasons that assessee is the beneficiary of bogus purchase entries to the tune of Rs.1,65,85,055/- as the assessee has obtained such entries from three parties namely; Aastha Impex - Rs.10 ... passing an order dated 16.03.2015. Finally, the AO after calling the details and information from the assessee of such bogus purchases concluded that the assessee is a beneficiary of these bogus purchase entries to the tune of Rs.1,65,85,055/- and made addition @ 11.03% of the said alleged purchases

Mody Interiors P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 16(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3354/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Jhunjhunwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

addition to the extent of Rs.3,80,427/- by ld CIT(A) by directing the AO to apply 12.50% of the total alleged bogus purchases. Accordingly other grounds are dismissed as not pressed. 2 M/s. Mody Interiors Pvt. Ltd. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed ... Thereafter, the case was re-opened by the AO after receiving information from DGIT(Inv) Mumbai that assessee has obtained the bogus purchase accommodation bills from M/S Niddhish Impex Pvt Ltd. to the tune of Rs. 15,35,504/-. Thereafter, after recording the reasons to believe that the assessee

Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Jalna vs. Rochandas Kimatram Kawarani, Jalna

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1871/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1871/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

Tribunal. 3. I have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. It is seen that assessee had obtained bogus purchases from hawala parties. The Pune Benches of the Tribunal has disposed off a group of similar cases. Vide the lead order in the case ... computing the amount of addition @10% plus the normal gross profit rate shown by the assessee for this year on the bogus purchases, as against 10% sustained by the ld. first appellate authority. 5. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open

Deputy Cosioner of Icome Tax 9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.Abhishek Millennium Contracts Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 7197/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Sh. G. Manjunatha, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 7197/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Satishchandra RajoreFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra Poojari, AR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

Apex Court in the case of N.K. Proteins Vs. DCIT SLP Nos. 769 of 2017 dated 16.01.2017 wherein the addition on account of bogus purchase has been enhanced to 25% ? The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above ground above set aside and that ... whereby the purchases for an amount of Rs.78,82,704/- were disallowed by the A.O. by treating them as bogus purchases. 3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) after considering the case of both the parties partly allowed

M/S. Tirupati Sales, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2749/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Mar 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri N. Ashok Babu, JCIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 234B

Based on the information received from the Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra Government, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee was a beneficiary of the bogus purchases bills from the entry operators. As per the said information, the assessee was a beneficiary of the bills issued by the following suspicious hawala ... Rs.1,30,86,345/- for the assessment year 2009-10 and Rs.1,61,84,077/- for the assessment year 2010-11 on account of bogus purchases to the total income of the assessee respectively. Aggrieved with the said decision of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter before

M/S. Tirupati Sales, Aurangabad vs. Income Tax Officer

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2748/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Mar 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Written SubmissionFor Respondent: Shri N. Ashok Babu, JCIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 234B

Based on the information received from the Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra Government, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee was a beneficiary of the bogus purchases bills from the entry operators. As per the said information, the assessee was a beneficiary of the bills issued by the following suspicious hawala ... Rs.1,30,86,345/- for the assessment year 2009-10 and Rs.1,61,84,077/- for the assessment year 2010-11 on account of bogus purchases to the total income of the assessee respectively. Aggrieved with the said decision of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter before

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Venky'S India Ltd., Pune

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

ITA 2332/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Mar 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Ashok Babu, (DR)

erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,69,68,524/- and upholding only part of this addition @ 20% of the bogus purchases even when the assessee himself accepted that the purchases were made only from M/s Ajanta Enterprises and nowhere else. 3. The order of CIT(A) may be vacated ... information received from the Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra Government, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee ITA Nos.2331 & 2332/PUN/2016 was a beneficiary of the bogus purchases bills from the entry operators. As per the said information, the assessee was a beneficiary of the bills issued by M/s. Ajanta Enterprises amounting

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. M/S. Venky'S India Ltd., Pune

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

ITA 2331/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Mar 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Ashok Babu, (DR)

erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,69,68,524/- and upholding only part of this addition @ 20% of the bogus purchases even when the assessee himself accepted that the purchases were made only from M/s Ajanta Enterprises and nowhere else. 3. The order of CIT(A) may be vacated ... information received from the Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra Government, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee ITA Nos.2331 & 2332/PUN/2016 was a beneficiary of the bogus purchases bills from the entry operators. As per the said information, the assessee was a beneficiary of the bills issued by M/s. Ajanta Enterprises amounting

Venky'S (India) Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 2223/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Mar 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Ashok Babu, (DR)

erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,69,68,524/- and upholding only part of this addition @ 20% of the bogus purchases even when the assessee himself accepted that the purchases were made only from M/s Ajanta Enterprises and nowhere else. 3. The order of CIT(A) may be vacated ... information received from the Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra Government, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee ITA Nos.2331 & 2332/PUN/2016 was a beneficiary of the bogus purchases bills from the entry operators. As per the said information, the assessee was a beneficiary of the bills issued by M/s. Ajanta Enterprises amounting

Venky'S (India) Ltd., Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 2222/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Mar 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. Ashok Babu, (DR)

erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,69,68,524/- and upholding only part of this addition @ 20% of the bogus purchases even when the assessee himself accepted that the purchases were made only from M/s Ajanta Enterprises and nowhere else. 3. The order of CIT(A) may be vacated ... information received from the Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra Government, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee ITA Nos.2331 & 2332/PUN/2016 was a beneficiary of the bogus purchases bills from the entry operators. As per the said information, the assessee was a beneficiary of the bills issued by M/s. Ajanta Enterprises amounting

Vidyut Metallics P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle- 38(New Central Circle-6(3), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 5243/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5243/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.5244/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Vidyut Metallics Pvt.Ltd. Acit-Cc 38 बनाम/ 4Th Floor, Malhotra House [New Central Circle-6(3) 19Th Floor, Air India Building Opp. Gpo, Fort Vs. Mumbai-400 001. Nariman Point, Mumbai-21. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcv-3305-R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jha and Shri Dr. Prayag Jha- Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Gobgtra - Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 201(1)Section 40

same under the head material consumed. Pursuant to receipt of certain information from Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra, it transpired that the assessee obtained bogus purchase bills from various parties. Accordingly, the assessee was directed to substantiate the purchase transactions exceeding Rs.10 Lacs. Notices were also sent ... Reconciliation difference 2. M/s Bombay Ammonia & Rs.26,963/- Reconciliation Chemical Company difference 3. M/s Raj Enterprises Rs.1,15,143/- Reconciliation difference 4. Alleged bogus purchases from Rs.1,03,70,995/- Non-existent 5 parties parties Total Rs.1,05,98,736/- 5.3 The Ld. AR agitated the additions made on this

Chetan Ramniklal Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 5(4), Mumbai

ITA 3751/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri N. K. Pradhanshri Chetan Ramniklal Shah, Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax 5Th Floor, Urmi Building, Central Circle-5(4) Vs. 19Th Floor, R. No. 1927 Air India Bldg 65, A.G. Road, Worli Sea Face, Mumbai-4000025 Mumbai. Pan – Aajps7227C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mani Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

hands of the assessee. In the reasons recorded for reopening, the assessing officer has stated that the assessee has obtained the accommodation entries for bogus purchases. However, in the assessment order, he has made addition on account of unsecured loans obtained by the assessee, that too voluntarily disclosed ... reasons for repening, the AO is referring to “accommodation bills” only, meaning thereby, the AO was of the view that the assessee has availed bogus purchase bills from Rajendra Jain & other groups. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, it came to light that the assessee has availed only “unsecured

Chandraiah Balnaa Kalal, Mumbai vs. ITO 32(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our above order

ITA 1495/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1495/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) Mr.Chandraiah Balanna Kalal Income Tax Officer-32(1)(2) Plot No.7, D-1 Mumbai. बनाम/ Mandar Chs Ltd., Rsc 21, Vs. Gorai-1, Borivali (W) Mumbai-400 092. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpk-8755-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Appellant By : M. Subramanian- Ld. Ar Respondent By : Abhi Ram Kartikeyan - Ld.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 14/03/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 19/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: M. Subramanian- Ld. ARFor Respondent: Abhi Ram Kartikeyan - Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 43B

require appreciation of new facts and hence, taken on record. These grounds contest addition of deemed rental value and addition of account of alleged bogus purchases. 2. The assessment for impugned AY was framed by Ld. Income Tax Officer-32(1)(2), Mumbai [AO] u/s 143(3) on 30/03/2015 wherein ... statistical purposes. 4 Mr. Chandraiah Balanna Kalal Assessment Year :2012-13 6.1 The second additional grounds contest estimation of income on account of alleged bogus purchases. Pursuant to receipt of certain information from DGIT (Inv.), it transpired that the assessee stood beneficiary of bogus purchase bills aggregating to Rs.19.22 Lacs

Vijay Tukaram Raundal, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 160/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.N. PuranikFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234B

wherein on the same facts and circumstances, we have observed that : “40. In view of the above said ratios, the present issue of bogus purchases is to be decided on the basis of facts of each case. The first aspect is the information received by the Assessing Officer from ... delivery of goods, then it is case of passing of bills of sale and purchases, against which no VAT has been paid. Such bogus purchases are then to be added in the hands of assessee. Where the Assessing Officer had confronted the assessee with the information received, supplied copies

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Beawar, Ward-1 Beawar vs. M/S. Manirtanam Gems Pvt. Ltd, Chhajer Sadan, Near Chiman Singh Lodha School, Out Side Nehru Gate, Beawar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 539/JPR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Mar 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 133(6)Section 145(3)

assessee were not found acceptable. Further, the Assessing Officer received information from DDIT Mumbai stating that the assessee has taken accommodation entry of bogus purchases of Rs. 50 lacs from M/s Taj Impex which is entity operating from Shri Praveen Kumar Jain. Accordingly, information from M/s Taj Impex were also ... entry obtained from Shri Uttam Hinger who is associate of Shri Praveen Kumar Jain and indulge in the business of providing accommodation entries of bogus purchases and the said addition was proposed to be made U/s 69C of the Act. 3. In response, the assessee filed its submissions however

Smt.Rajlakshmi B., Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT-29, Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed

ITA 6188/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.6188/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2010-11) Smt. Rajlakshmi B. Pr. Cit-29 Unit No.132B Room No. C-10, बनाम/ 3R D Floor, Pratyakshkar Bhavan Nahar & Sheth Ind. Estate Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Pannalal Compound, Lbs Marg Bandra(E), Mumbai-400 051. Bhandup(W), Mumbai-400 078. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Afgpb-1497-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Appellant By : Hitesh Shah - Ld.Ar Respondent By : D.G. Pansari- Ld.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 14/03/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 18/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Hitesh Shah - Ld.ARFor Respondent: D.G. Pansari- Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(1)

impugned AY vide order dated 30/01/2016 wherein the assessee was saddled with estimated addition of 12.5% on account of certain alleged bogus purchases. While estimating the same, Ld. AO relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court rendered in Simit P.Sheth 356 ITR 451. 4. However, subsequently, upon ... books of account but has also recorded the corresponding sales effected. Thus, he proceeded to make addition of the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases by estimating the same at 10%. Thus, a reading of the assessment order makes it clear, the Assessing Officer not only has conducted