← 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

Sukeshan Equipments Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Kalyan

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

ITA 2544/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri GC Lalka, ARFor Respondent: Shri BS Bist, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

only common issue in these appeals of assessee is against the orders of CIT(A) confirming the addition made by AO of entire bogus purchases at ₹ 3,86,340/- of the bogus purchase. For this assessee has raised identically worded grounds in both the years except the quantum. The facts ... case. I find from the facts of the case and argument of both the sides that the CIT(A) has confirmed the entire bogus purchase at ₹ 3,86,340/-. I find that in both the years AO has not doubted the corresponding sales. Further, it is also not doubted that

Tejraj Manroop Chand Tak, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 18(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2113/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri BS Bist, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234A

order of CIT(A) directing the AO to restrict the addition made by AO being estimating profit percentage at the rate of 9.93 % on bogus purchases. For this assessee has raised following ground: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... erred in confirming addition of ₹ 16,34,076/- on account of alleged purchases i.e. 9.93% of alleged bogus purchases. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming interest charged under section 234A, 234B and 234C.” 3. Briefly

Shri Bharatkumar T. Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-19(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2049/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2048/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2049/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2011-12) Shri Bharatkumar T. Jain The Income Tax Officer, - Oswal Impex B-6, Mehta Bldg, 19(1)(2), Vs. 2Nd Carpenter Street, Mumbai- Matru Mandir, Mumbai 400 004 .. (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Adypj5305L अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Bs Bist, Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri BS Bist, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

appeals of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition made by AO applying the profit rate at 12.5% of the bogus purchase. For this assessee has raised identically worded grounds in both the years except the quantum. The facts and circumstances are exactly identical in both ... this profit at 12.5%. As the purchases could not be established as genuine, the estimation made by the AO of 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases is confirmed. However, the AO is directed to allow the GP already declared by the assessee on these alleged bogus purchases. These grounds

Shri Bharatkumar T. Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-19(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2048/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhaayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2048/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2010-11) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 2049/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2011-12) Shri Bharatkumar T. Jain The Income Tax Officer, - Oswal Impex B-6, Mehta Bldg, 19(1)(2), Vs. 2Nd Carpenter Street, Mumbai- Matru Mandir, Mumbai 400 004 .. (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Adypj5305L अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Bs Bist, Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri BS Bist, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

appeals of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition made by AO applying the profit rate at 12.5% of the bogus purchase. For this assessee has raised identically worded grounds in both the years except the quantum. The facts and circumstances are exactly identical in both ... this profit at 12.5%. As the purchases could not be established as genuine, the estimation made by the AO of 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases is confirmed. However, the AO is directed to allow the GP already declared by the assessee on these alleged bogus purchases. These grounds

Ranjan Ramesh Doshi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-27(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1071/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri KL Vajani, ARFor Respondent: Shri SK Bepari, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

order of CIT(A) directing the AO to restrict the addition made by AO being net profit percentage at the rate of 12.5 % on bogus purchases. For this assessee has raised following ground: - “(a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals ... involving similar set of facts as in the instant case, the Hon’ble Mumbai Tribunal as estimated the G.P. addition on account of such bogus purchases as 12.5% some of which are listed below: ……………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………… …………… In view of the above discussed factual matric and precedence, I am of the view that

ACIT Cent. Cir. 3(2), Cent. Range - 3, Mumbai vs. Shri Nitin M. Shah, Mumbai

ITA 2863/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. G. S. Pannu, Vp & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2863/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri B. S. Bist, DRFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel, AR
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

during the course of search and had later given bifurcation of such amount surrendered which includes bogus purchases made, on which the above penalty has 6 I.T.A. No. 2863/Mum/2017 Shri Nitin M. Shah been levied . Subsequently these amounts have been included by the assessee in the return filed subsequent

M/S. Patco Precision Components Pvt. Ltd., Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 697/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 147

Assessing Officer in order dated 05-01- 2015 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) held that the assessee has indulged in bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.18,93,192/- from the hawala dealer Vitrag Traders Private Limited. Consequently, the Assessing Officer made addition of the aforesaid amount. Aggrieved against ... reopening of assessment and the addition made on account of alleged bogus purchases, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The First Appellate Authority upheld the reopening of assessment. However, in respect of addition on account of bogus purchases, the addition was restricted

M/S. Patco Precision Components Pvt. Ltd., Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 696/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 147

Assessing Officer in order dated 05-01- 2015 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) held that the assessee has indulged in bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.18,93,192/- from the hawala dealer Vitrag Traders Private Limited. Consequently, the Assessing Officer made addition of the aforesaid amount. Aggrieved against ... reopening of assessment and the addition made on account of alleged bogus purchases, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The First Appellate Authority upheld the reopening of assessment. However, in respect of addition on account of bogus purchases, the addition was restricted

Shri Nilesh Rameshchandra Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-12, Now Dy. CIT, Circle-6(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 3131/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3131/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Dhiren Shah, A.R

grounds of appeal, the assessee has raised solitary grievance towards addition on account of alleged bogus purchase amounting to Rs.1,28,53,148/-. 3. The assessee, a proprietor of M/s. Shagun Art, filed its return of income for AY 2009-10 which was subsequently reopened under s.148 ... account and submitted that it has declared profits at 7.31% of the turnover including similar profits on sale corresponding to alleged bogus purchases. The learned AR submitted that in such a fact-situation, where the assessee has already declared handsome profits on sales corresponding to purchase of the trading item

Rajal Enterprises, Mumbai vs. Pr.CIT -29, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2273/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri N.K.Pradhan, Am आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.2273/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2011-12) Rajal Enterprises Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax – 201, Rushabh, B. R. Road, 29 Room No.C–10, 3Rd Floor, Kalp Nagari, Mulund West, बिाम/ Mumbai – 400080 Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai – 400051 स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं ./Pan/Gir No. Aajfr5374H (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Hitesh Shah प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Manish K. Singh

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Manish K. Singh
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 263

Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra that the assessee is one of the beneficiary of the accommodation entries provided by way of bogus purchase bill issued by M/s.Daksha Enterprises, an entity identified as a hawala operator by the Sales Tax Department, reopened the assessment under section ... decision of the same High Court in case of CIT V/s. Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. estimated the profit @ 10% of the alleged bogus purchases and made an addition of `.5,13,630/–. After completion of assessment as aforesaid, learned PCIT in exercise of power conferred under section

Kamal Prakash Agarwal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-30(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4415/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

Section 133(6)

Simit P Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) estimated the profit at 30% of the alleged bogus purchases. Accordingly, he sustained the addition to the extent of 25.10 lakhs and granted relief for the remaining amount. 5. At the time of hearing, the learned AR furnished ... earlier years. We have noticed that the Tribunal has sustained the addition to the extent of 4% of the value of alleged bogus purchases. Accordingly, consistent with the view taken by the Tribunal in the earlier years in the assessee’s own case, we modify the order passed

Eagle Construction Co., Ulhasnagar vs. DCIT, CC-1, Thane

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 4099/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/S Eagle Construction Co., The Acit, Circle-1, Eagle Nest, Block- 758, 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Behind : Chopra Court, Khadakpada, Wayle Nagar, Ulhasnagar - 421003 Vs. Kalyan (W) - 421301 Pan: Aaafe3571A (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The Acit, Circle-1, M/S Eagle Construction Co., 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Eagle Nest, Block- 758, Khadakpada, Wayle Nagar, Behind : Chopra Court, Kalyan (W) - 421301 Vs. Ulhasnagar - 421003 Pan: Aaafe3571A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M. Subramanian (Ar) Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2018

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian (AR)For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy (DR)
Section 133Section 143

assessee has established the genuineness of purchases, the Ld. CIT (A) has wrongly sustained the addition of 20% of the total amount of bogus purchases. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) relying on the assessment order passed by the AO submitted that ... ITAT, Pune Bench rendered in ITA No. 1411-1415 dated 20.02.2015 in the case of M/s Kolte Patil Developers Ltd., wherein 100% addition of bogus purchases was confirmed. The Ld. DR further pointed out that the department has also filed cross appeal against the impugned order passed

Asst CIT Cir 1, Kalyan vs. Eagle Construction Co, Ulhasnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3937/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-2012 M/S Eagle Construction Co., The Acit, Circle-1, Eagle Nest, Block- 758, 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Behind : Chopra Court, Khadakpada, Wayle Nagar, Ulhasnagar - 421003 Vs. Kalyan (W) - 421301 Pan: Aaafe3571A (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2011-2012 The Acit, Circle-1, M/S Eagle Construction Co., 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Eagle Nest, Block- 758, Khadakpada, Wayle Nagar, Behind : Chopra Court, Kalyan (W) - 421301 Vs. Ulhasnagar - 421003 Pan: Aaafe3571A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M. Subramanian (Ar) Revenue By : Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2018

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian (AR)For Respondent: Shri R. Manjunatha Swamy (DR)
Section 133Section 143

assessee has established the genuineness of purchases, the Ld. CIT (A) has wrongly sustained the addition of 20% of the total amount of bogus purchases. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) relying on the assessment order passed by the AO submitted that ... ITAT, Pune Bench rendered in ITA No. 1411-1415 dated 20.02.2015 in the case of M/s Kolte Patil Developers Ltd., wherein 100% addition of bogus purchases was confirmed. The Ld. DR further pointed out that the department has also filed cross appeal against the impugned order passed

Asst CIT 16(3), Mumbai vs. Th Zone Projects, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2617/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit-16(3), M/S Th Zone Projects, Room No.446, 705, B Wingh, Cosmic बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Heights, Bhakti Park, Near Vs. M. K. Road, Imax, Wadala, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400035 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aafft1015R

Section 69C

dated 22/02/2011, observed/held as under:- “The question raised in this appeal is, whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition on account of bogus purchases allegedly made by the assessee from M/s. Thakkar Agro Industrial Chem Supplies P. Ltd. According to the revenue, the Director of M/s. Thakkar Agro ... Revenue. However, from the order of the Tribunal dated April 30, 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

M/S. Dsc Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 146/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. N. K. Saini & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year:2006-07 M/S Dsc Ltd., Vs Dcit, Central Circle -15, E-9, 3Rd Floor, Ndse Part-2, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan Aaacd0003D ( Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Advocate Shri Shailesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate Respondent By: Ms Ashmia Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 10.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31 .10.2018 O R D E R Per Narasimha K. Chary, Jm This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 10Th November 2014 In Appeal No.97/2014-15 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Ii, New Delhi For Asstt. Year 2006-07. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In The Execution Of Contractual Works Including The Extension Of Widening Of Highways, Construction Of Flyovers, Culverts

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Ashmia Neb, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Subsequently, pursuant to the search operations carried out at the premises of DSC Group of companies on 28.8.2012, the Investigation Wing found certain bogus purchases made through unexplained sources by the assessee and proceedings were taken up accordingly. Notice dated 28.3.2013 was issued u/s 148 of the Income ... merits of the 3 case, learned CIT(A) held that the search operations conducted on 28.8.2012 at the assessee’s premises reveal booking of bogus purchases and the learned AO issued notice u/s 148 disposed of the objections filed by the assessee by way of speaking order dated

Manisha Hemant Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1781/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Bleshri Manisha Hemant Mehta V. Income Tax Officer – 22(1)(3) A-13, Yashwant Building, Mumbai 90 Feet Road, Ghatkopar (E) Mumbai - 77 Pan: Agtpm 8940 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dharmil Amit Jhaveri Department By : Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Dharmil Amit JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh
Section 143(3)

opportunity to the assessee and the issue was in respect of the part relief given by the Ld.CIT(A) deleting the addition made toward bogus purchases. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that since the Tribunal had set-aside the appeal of the Revenue, the appeal of the assessee

Asit P Desai, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(2)(1), Thane

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

ITA 3599/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarshri Asit P. Desai Income Tax Officer-25(2)(1) 506-B Wing Room No. 703, C-12 225 Nariman Road Vs. 7Th Floor, Bandra-Kurla, Vile Parle (E) Complex, Mumbai 400051 Mumbai 400057 Pan – Aabpd2828E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri D.C. Saboo &For Respondent: Ms. Harkamal Sohi
Section 271(1)(c)

favour of the assessee and therefore the same should be allowed. The learned A.R. submitted that the AO has added 25% of the bogus purchases to the assessee , which was confirmed by the CIT(A) in the appellate proceedings. The learned A.R. submitted that since this is a case ... After hearing both the parties and perusing the record, we find that in the present case the income is calculated by applying percentage on bogus purchases and the AO imposed penalty only on the said addition. 3 Shri Asit P. Desai We observe that penalty cannot be imposed

Shri Jignesh V. Parekh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 27(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1283/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Jignesh V. Parekh A-6, Ito, Ward 27(1)(5), Munisuvrat Darshan, Mumbai, Vashi Vs. Navroj Lanee, Ghatkopar Railway Station (West), Mumbai-400086. Complex, Tower No. 6, 4Th Floor, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703. Pan No. Aacpp3869L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Rajeev Gubegotra, Dr Date Of Hearing : 23/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/10/2018

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Rajeev Gubegotra, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

same to the total income returned, would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, I direct the AO to estimate profit @ 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases, which works out to Rs.7,78,440/- (@ 12.5% of Rs.60,67,516/-) and restrict the addition to Rs.7,58,440/-. The appellant gets

ITO WD 2(3), Thane vs. Jayesh Jamnadas Fifadra, Thane

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 4215/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Jayesh J Fifadra, Income Tax Officer-2(3), A-406 Vinit Apartment, Thane. Room No. 13, B-Wing, Vs. Caption Sameer Road, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Dhanukarwadikandiwali Wagle Industrial Estate Road (West)-Pin Code-400067 No. 16-Z, Thane (W)-400604 Pan No. Aagpf9872R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-2(3), Shri Jayesh J Fifadra A- Thane. Room No. 13, B- 406 Vinit Apartment, Vs. Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Caption Sameer Road, Park Wagle Industrial Dhanukar Wadikandiwali Estate Road No. 16-Z, (West)-Pin Code-400067 Thane (W)-400604 Pan No. Aagpf9872R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Rajeev Gubegotra, Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/10/2018

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Rajeev Gubegotra, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 68Section 69C

Thereafter, the Assessing Officer (AO) received information from the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra that the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills from entry providers. As per the information received, the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs.2,15,55,520/- from 11 entry providers ... affidavits filed by the hawala parties with the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra, it is evident that the assessee had indulged in bogus purchases from them. Also the notices u/s 133(6) issued by the AO to the hawala parties were returned by the postal authorities with the remark

Jayesh J Fifadra, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Thane, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 4207/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Jayesh J Fifadra, Income Tax Officer-2(3), A-406 Vinit Apartment, Thane. Room No. 13, B-Wing, Vs. Caption Sameer Road, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Dhanukarwadikandiwali Wagle Industrial Estate Road (West)-Pin Code-400067 No. 16-Z, Thane (W)-400604 Pan No. Aagpf9872R Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-2(3), Shri Jayesh J Fifadra A- Thane. Room No. 13, B- 406 Vinit Apartment, Vs. Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar It Caption Sameer Road, Park Wagle Industrial Dhanukar Wadikandiwali Estate Road No. 16-Z, (West)-Pin Code-400067 Thane (W)-400604 Pan No. Aagpf9872R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Rajeev Gubegotra, Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/10/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 26/10/2018

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Rajeev Gubegotra, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 148Section 68Section 69C

Thereafter, the Assessing Officer (AO) received information from the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra that the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills from entry providers. As per the information received, the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills amounting to Rs.2,15,55,520/- from 11 entry providers ... affidavits filed by the hawala parties with the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra, it is evident that the assessee had indulged in bogus purchases from them. Also the notices u/s 133(6) issued by the AO to the hawala parties were returned by the postal authorities with the remark