← 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

Asst CIT 10(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Kshitij Interiors P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2428/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas V. MehendaleFor Respondent: Shri Abiram Kartikeyan

challenging the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance at 12.5% of the Gross Profit on the alleged bogus purchases. (A.Ys: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/s. Kshitij Interiors Pvt. Ltd 2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset submitted that the appeals of the assessee filed ... below. The Cross appeals of the assessee in challenging the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in restricting the profit element at 12.5% of the bogus purchases has been considered by the Coordinate Bench and it has affirmed the order of the Ld.CIT(A) observing as under: - “2.8. The ratio laid

Asst CIT 10(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Kshitij Ineriors P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2427/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas V. MehendaleFor Respondent: Shri Abiram Kartikeyan

challenging the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance at 12.5% of the Gross Profit on the alleged bogus purchases. (A.Ys: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/s. Kshitij Interiors Pvt. Ltd 2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset submitted that the appeals of the assessee filed ... below. The Cross appeals of the assessee in challenging the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in restricting the profit element at 12.5% of the bogus purchases has been considered by the Coordinate Bench and it has affirmed the order of the Ld.CIT(A) observing as under: - “2.8. The ratio laid

Sobhagmull Gokulchand Jewellers vs. Asst CIT Cir 2

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 335/JPR/2016[]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Dr. A.K. NayarFor Respondent: Shri Shri Sunil Hirawat
Section 131Section 131(1)(d)Section 271(1)(c)

proper, however, he 4 M/s. Sobhagmull Gokal Chand Jewellers directed the Assessing Officer to apply gross profit rate of 7% to the alleged bogus purchases which resulted in addition of ` 6,23,780, as against the addition of ` 1,67,24,195, made by the Assessing Officer. The aforesaid decision ... learned Commissioner (Appeals) was also sustained by the Tribunal. Be that as it may, on the basis of addition sustained on account of alleged bogus purchases, the Assessing Officer initiated proceedings for imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and ultimately passed an order imposing penalty

Birla Cotsyn (India) Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5633/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Vissanji, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

India) Ltd. taken accommodation entries from M/s. Siddhapad Trading Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs.99,94,191/- . Thus the assessee inflated the expenses by booking bogus purchases. The AO issued notice under section 148 of the Act on 22.02.2013 after recording reasons which were duly served upon the assessee and finally ... assessment was framed under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act making addition of full amount of bogus purchase of Rs.99,94,191/-. 4. The assessee challenged the reopening of assessment before Ld. CIT(A) who also dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that

M/S.Rolex Products, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 27(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 984/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Rolex Products Ito-27(3)(2) C-12, 4Th Floor, Samarpan New Tower No.6, Room No. 418, Maneklal Estate, Lbs Marg, Vs. Vashi Railway Station Ghatkopar (W), Complex, Vashi, Mumbai-400086. Navi Mumbai-400076. Pan: Aahfr2053H Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Manish V. Shah With Niyanta Mehta (Ar) Respondent By : Shri S.K. Bepair (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2018 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of The Income Tax Act (The Act) Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-25

For Appellant: Shri Manish V. Shah with Niyanta Mehta (AR)For Respondent: Shri S.K. Bepair (Sr. DR)
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 253Section 254(1)Section 69Section 69C

standing in the name of the allwged bogus parties. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the disallowance under section 69C on account of bogus purchases was sustained @ 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases. Therefore, further aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present ... grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is “ Whether the order of ld CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the disallowance of alleged bogus purchases @12.5%” . 4. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that all purchases of the assessee are genuine one. The assessee has proved by sufficient

Right Impex, Mumbai vs. I.T.O. - 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 866/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Right Impex Ito 19(3)(1) 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, 26/24, 6B1, Sindhi Lane, Girgaum, Vs. Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400004. Mumbai- 400007. Pan: Aakfr5767M Appellant Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri S.K. Bepair (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 09.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.08.2018 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Under Section 253 Of The Act Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [Ld.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Bepair (Sr. DR)
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 253Section 254(1)

following are the substantial ground of appeal: 1. Validity of reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act. 2. Disallowance/addition of bogus purchase @ 10% of the alleged bogus purchases. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is in the business of Ferrous and Non-ferrous ... element embedded in such tainted purchases. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the re-opening was sustained, however, the disallowance on account of bogus purchases was restricted to 10%. Therefore, further aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before

Ramesh Bhogilal Parikh, Mumbai vs. ACIT 20(2), Mumbai

ITA 227/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 227/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri MayurFor Respondent: Shri Chaitanya
Section 1Section 271(1)(c)

least to some extent, business of the assessee. The assessee, during quantum proceedings itself filed revised computation of income after disallowing the alleged bogus purchases by citing the reason that the suppliers were not traceable during 8 I.T.A. No. 227/Mum/2016 Ramesh Bhogilal Parikh assessment proceedings. Nevertheless, the assessee

Income-Tax Officer vs. M/S. Debros Polymer Product, Nashik

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1929/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal

moulded parts and other allied items. The information was received from the Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra regarding various persons engaged in providing entries/bills for bogus purchases and also the details of beneficiaries of such bogus purchases. The name of the assessee appeared in the list of beneficiaries from such Hawala ... 47/PUN/2018 by the Assessing Officer. In the absence of complete details, as sought the Assessing Officer made addition of the entire alleged bogus purchases made by assessee from the suspicious Hawala dealers as under : Assessment Year Additions made on account of purchases made from Hawala dealers 2009-10 Rs.59

Income-Tax Officer vs. M/S. Debros Polymer Product, Nashik

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1928/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal

moulded parts and other allied items. The information was received from the Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra regarding various persons engaged in providing entries/bills for bogus purchases and also the details of beneficiaries of such bogus purchases. The name of the assessee appeared in the list of beneficiaries from such Hawala ... 47/PUN/2018 by the Assessing Officer. In the absence of complete details, as sought the Assessing Officer made addition of the entire alleged bogus purchases made by assessee from the suspicious Hawala dealers as under : Assessment Year Additions made on account of purchases made from Hawala dealers 2009-10 Rs.59

Income-Tax Officer vs. M/S. Debros Polymer Product, Nashik

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1927/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal

moulded parts and other allied items. The information was received from the Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra regarding various persons engaged in providing entries/bills for bogus purchases and also the details of beneficiaries of such bogus purchases. The name of the assessee appeared in the list of beneficiaries from such Hawala ... 47/PUN/2018 by the Assessing Officer. In the absence of complete details, as sought the Assessing Officer made addition of the entire alleged bogus purchases made by assessee from the suspicious Hawala dealers as under : Assessment Year Additions made on account of purchases made from Hawala dealers 2009-10 Rs.59

Bhaven Anilbhai Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Ward 3(1), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4531/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhbhaven Anilbhai Shah Ito Ward-(3(1) 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, M/S Unnati Ispat, 101, Rh-54, Shreeram Plaza, Behind Model Vs. Murbad Road, Kalyan (W), College, Midc, Dombivali (E), 421301. Mumbai-421203. Pan: Akops0050L Appellant Respondent Bhaven Anilbhai Shah Ito Ward-(3(1) 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, M/S Unnati Ispat, 101, Rh-54, Shreeram Plaza, Behind Model Vs. Murbad Road, Kalyan (W), College, Midc, Dombivali (E), 421301. Mumbai-421203. Pan: Akops0050L Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Neha Paranjpe (Ar) Respondent By : Shri S.K. Bepair (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.08.2018 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. These Two Appeal By Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld.

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Paranjpe (AR)For Respondent: Shri S.K. Bepair (Sr. DR)
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69C

Shah 2. The ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding addition of Rs. 3,46,448/- on account of alleged bogus purchases by the assessee. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts and evidences submitted before the learned AO as well as learned ... such tainted purchase. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the re-opening was sustained, however, the disallowance under section 69C on account of bogus purchases was restricted to 25%. Therefore, further aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before

Asst CIT 10(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Kba Infrastructure P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2429/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Acit-10(1)(2), Mumbai M/S Kba Room No. 651, Aayakar Infrastructure Pvt. Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Ltd., 31, Jai Hind Mumbai-400020. Cottage Shivaji Raje Marg, Vile Parle, Mumbai-400057. Pan No. Aadck8198B Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Ar Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 08/08/2018

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

Before us, the Ld. DR submits that the Ld. CIT(A) should not have restricted the disallowance to 12.5% of such bogus purchases of Rs.4,57,20,006/- because the assessee was unable to substantiate before the AO its purchases from the suppliers who had already been established as hawala ... facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to 12.5% of such bogus purchases of Rs.4,57,20,006/-. M/s KBA Infrastructure 6 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 08/08/2018

Sanghvi Metals, Mumbai vs. ITO - 19(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 1 of the appeal

ITA 2897/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Sanghvi Metals Ito-19(3)(2) 72, 1St Floor, C P Tank Road, Mumbai-400004. Mumbai-400004. Vs. Pan: Aaafs7992M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Bepair (Sr. DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 254(1)

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in (a) confirming addition to the extent of Rs. 1070650/- (6.50%) out of alleged bogus purchases of Rs.16471551/- (b) estimating rate of profit at 6.50% on alleged bogus purchases over and above gross profit declared of 5.0% by the appellant on such purchases ... total income of the appellant. Reasons assigned by him are wrong and insufficient to justify addition of Rs. 1070650/- @ 6.50% of alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 16471551/-. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed

Vikram N. Chandan, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 248/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Poojan Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Arju Garodia, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Vikram N. Chandan 04.02.2015 after the AO received information from DGIT(inv) vide letter dated 26.12.2013 to the effect that assessee is beneficiary of bogus purchase entries. The assessee made compliance of the notice under section 148 vide letter dated 19.02.2015 stating that the return already filed may kindly ... record, we find that the AO has received credible information from the DGIT, Mumbai to the effect that assessee is taking entries of bogus purchase and only after recording reasons to believe issued notice u/s 148 initiating the re-assessment proceedings. Therefore we do not find any defect or infirmity

Shri Bhuraram Virdaji Choudhary, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 184/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhshri Bhuraram Virdaji Ito-19(1)(2) Choudhary (Proprietor Of M/S. Matru Mandir, I.T. Office Gaurav Steel), Office No. 126/8, Vs. Tardeo Road, Grant Road Dr. M.G. Mahimtura Marg, 3Rd (W), Mumbai-400007. Kumbharwada, Mumbai-400004. Pan: Adwpc8702P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Jitendra Singh (Ar) Respondent By : Shri S.K. Bepair (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 06.8.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.08.2018 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai [Ld. Cit(A)] Dated 16.10.2017 For Assessment Year 2009-10. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh (AR)For Respondent: Shri S.K. Bepair (Sr. DR)
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69A

such tainted purchase. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the re-opening as well as the disallowance under section 69A on account of bogus purchases was sustained. Therefore, further aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before us. 3. We have ... therefore, ground no.1 of the appeal is treated as not pressed and consequently dismissed. 4. Ground No.2 relates to sustaining the addition @ 12.5% of bogus purchases. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that all purchases of the assessee are 2 ITA No. 184 Mum 2018-Shri Bhuraram Virdaji genuine

ITO 4(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Encrich Rd Infraprojects P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3219/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 44A

during the year without appreciating the fact that the AO has pointed out specific defect in the books of accounts of the assessee wherein bogus purchases from two parties were made and only thereafter applied the said rate. 2 M/s. Enrich RD Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. 3. At the outset ... wherein the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal has taken a view that income of the assessee should be estimated in respect of bogus purchases by applying the GP @ 12.5%. The Ld. A.R. submitted that the present addition as made by the AO by making the estimation

Shree Sundha Steels Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO - 5(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 5919/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Shree Sundha Steels Pvt. Vs. Income Tax Officer – Ltd., 5(3)(2) 15/16, D-Wing Ground Floor Mumbai Gora Gandhi Palace 122, Khetwadi Back Road Khetwadi, Mumbai – 400 004 Pan/Gir No.Aaics1816M Appellant) .. Respondent) Corrigendum Order

rectify the typographical mistake and direct that last line should be read as “to restrict the addition to the extent of 0.2% of alleged bogus purchases”. (RAM LAL NEGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated 06/08/2018 Karuna Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : The Appellant 1. The Respondent

Neha Home Builders P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 550/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri T.A. Khan, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

assessing the total income of Rs.22,96,05,946/- by making an addition of Rs.4,86,115/- on account of bogus purchases as against the return of income of Rs.22,91,19,831/-. No appeal was filed against the quantum addition by the assessee. In the assessment order, the penalty ... Appellant is dismissed.” 5. The Ld. A.R. vehemently submitted before us that in this case the penalty was imposed on account of bogus purchases qua which the assessee furnished all the bills, vouchers, payment details etc., however, could not produce the parties 3 M/s. Neha Home Builders Pvt. Ltd. before

Zenith Construction Co., Panvel vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

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

ITA 2289/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2289/Pun/2016 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha
Section 148

order of the Tribunal (supra) and the same read as under : “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

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shri Dhondiram Narayan Limbhore, Raigad

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

ITA 1957/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 1956 & 1957/Pun/2016 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Mrs. Shweta MishraFor Respondent: Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi

ITAT, Pune 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 were confirmed. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in giving relief to the assessee ... extent of suppressed G.P. out of total bogus purchases even though – (i) The assessee could not produce primary evidences like Octrol Receipts, Delivery Challan etc. evidence to prove the genuineness of the purchases before the AO and before CIT(A). (ii) The affidavits filed by the entry providers before Sales