“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

A.B.Exports, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-19(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1455/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Mrugakshi K. Joshi, Ld.ARFor Respondent: N. Hemalatha, Ld. DR

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Mumbai, Appeal No.CIT(A)-51/IT-104/19(1)(1)/17- 18 dated 01/01/2018 qua confirmation of certain additions on account of alleged bogus purchases. The assessment for impugned AY was framed ITA.No.1455/Mum/2018 A.B Exports Assessment Year- 2010-11 by Ld. Income Tax Officer 19(1)(1), Mumbai ... income filed by the assessee on 03/01/2012 which was processed u/s 143(1). The issue under appeal is quantum addition against certain alleged bogus purchases. During impugned AY, the assessee was engaged in the business of export of diamonds. 2.1 The reassessment proceedings were initiated upon receipt of certain information

Siddhant Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle -5(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 1103/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2018AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Mrugakshi Joshi, Ld.ARFor Respondent: N. Hemalatha, Ld. DR

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

Mumbai, Appeal No.CIT(A)-10/DC-5(3)(1)/65/16- 17 dated 21/11/2017 qua confirmation of certain additions on account of alleged bogus purchases. The assessment for impugned AY was framed ITA.No.1103/Mum/2018 Siddhant Diamonds Private Limited Assessment Year- 2009-10 by Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax circle ... Lacs e-filed by the assessee on 26/03/2010 which was processed u/s 143(1). The issue under appeal is quantum addition against certain alleged bogus purchases. During impugned AY, the assessee was engaged in manufacturing & trading of gold, platinum & silver Jewellery including studded jewellery. 2.1 The reassessment proceedings were initiated

Janata Industries, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT 21, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4025/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalm/S. Janata Industries 162, Janata Compound Tulsi Pipe Road, Senapati Bapat Marg ……………. Appellant Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013 Pan – Aaafj4875E V/S Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–21, Mumbai M/S. Janata Industries 162, Janata Compound Tulsi Pipe Road, Senapati Bapat Marg ……………. Appellant Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013 Pan – Aaafj4875E V/S Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–21, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. ParikhFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Patankar

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(2)

under section 143(3) r/w section 147 of the Act on 30th March 2015, after making an addition of ` 82,039 on account of bogus purchases. Learned Pricipal Commissioner ofIncome Tax after calling for and examiing the assessment records of the assessee in exercise of power under section ... opening of assessment under section 147 of the Act was made by the Assessing Officer for the specific purpose of bringing to tax the bogus purchases alleged to have been made from a party. He submitted, the issue of claim of depreciation on which the revisional authority exercised his power

Ana Designs P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6296/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2018AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: N. Hemalatha, Ld. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Mumbai, Appeal No. CIT(A)-16/IT-186/DCIT 9(1)(2)/2015-16 dated 17/08/2016 qua confirmation of certain additions on account of alleged bogus purchases. The assessment for impugned AY was framed by Ld. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-9(1)(2), ITA.No.6296/Mum/2016 Ana Designs Private Limited Assessment Year ... Lacs e-filed by the assessee on 27/09/2009 which was processed u/s 143(1). The issue under appeal is quantum addition against certain alleged bogus purchases. None has appeared for assessee despite notice and no valid adjournment application is on record. Therefore, left with no option, we proceed to dispose

ACIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Three M Papper Mfg Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4127/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Pawan Singhacit- 2(3)(1), M/S Three M Paper Mfg. Co. Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. E/2, Rajjit Studio, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Dada Saheb Phalke Road, Mumbai-400020. Dadar (E), Mumbai-400014. Pan: Aaact1650J Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Shri Saurabh Deshpande (Dr) Respondent By : Shri Devendra H. Jain (Ar) Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income –Tax Act Per Pawan Singh;

For Appellant: Shri Shri Saurabh Deshpande (DR)For Respondent: Shri Devendra H. Jain (AR)

Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 40A(3)

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition on account of bogus purchases to the element of profit embedded in the purchase, without appreciating that the whole of the transaction was bogus ... addition of Rs. 47,39,025/- on account of non-genuine purchases. The assessing officer made the addition of 100% of the alleged bogus purchases. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the addition was restricted to 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases. Therefore, aggrieved by the order

Dharendra Babulal Mehta, Thane vs. ITO Ward - 4(1), Thane

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6439/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.6439/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dharendra Babulal Mehta Ito Ward 4(1), बनाम/ 6/B, New Sangam Building, Thane Sreepal Complex, Virar (West), Vs. Mumbai-401 202 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Afcps 7516 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Bhupendra Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Anoop Hiwase सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 07.05.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 23.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey, J. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.08.2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Thane, For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Briefly The Facts Are That The Assessee An Individual Is Stated To Be A Wholeseller In Iron & Steel Goods Through His Proprietary Concern M/S. Padman Enterprises. For The Assessment Year Under Dispute, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 30.09.2009 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,77,220/-. The Return Of Income Filed By The 2 Dharendra Babulal Mehta Assessee Was Initially Processed U/S. 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, The Assessing Officer On The Basis Of Information Received From The Maharashtra Sales Tax Department Found That The Purchases Worth Rs.1,02,54,663/-

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Hiwase

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

been made from 13 parties were not genuine, as the Maharashtra Sales Tax Department have found those parties to be providing accommodation entries/bills towards bogus purchases without physical delivery of goods. As per the information received, one of the beneficiaries of such accommodation entries/bills is the present assessee. He also ... above, this ground is deemed as not pressed, hence, dismissed. 7. Ground nos. 2 to 7 are against the addition made on account of bogus purchases. Advancing his arguments in respect of these grounds, the ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that the assessee had purchased the goods from

Rajesh K. Bhanushali, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 27(3)(4), Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 962/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: N. Hemalatha, Ld. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Income-Tax (Appeals)-25 [CIT(A)], Mumbai, Appeal No. CIT(A)-25/IT-15/2014-15 dated 05/12/2017 qua confirmation of certain additions on account of alleged bogus purchases. The assessment for impugned AY was framed by Ld. Income Tax Officer-22(2)(4), Mumbai [AO] u/s 143(3) read with ITA.No.962/Mum/2018 ... Lacs e-filed by the assessee on 13/10/2010 which was processed u/s 143(1). The issue under appeal is quantum addition against certain alleged bogus purchases. None has appeared for assessee despite notice and therefore, left with no option, we proceed to dispose-off the same on the basis

M/S.Stripco Springs Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 13(3)(3), Mumbai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1000/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1000/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) Stripco Springs Private Ltd. Income Tax Officer-13(3)(3) बनाम/ 7/8, Neelkamal Room No.412 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan Roshan Nagar Vs. Borivali-400 092 M.K.Road, Mumbai- 400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-7984-A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: N. Hemalatha, Ld. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Mumbai, Appeal No. CIT(A)-21/ITO-13(2)(4)/IT- 149/2016-17 dated 20/11/2017 qua confirmation of certain additions on account of alleged bogus purchases. The assessment for impugned AY was framed by Ld. Income Tax Officer-13(2)(4), Mumbai [AO] u/s 143(3) ITA.No.1000/Mum/2018 Stripco Springs Private Limited ... revised return filed by the assessee on 14/01/2012 which was processed u/s 143(1). The issue under appeal is quantum addition against certain alleged bogus purchases. None has appeared for assessee despite notice and therefore, left with no option, we proceed to dispose-off the same on the basis

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -4 vs. M/S Garg Concast Ltd

ITA/597/2018HC Delhi21 May 2018

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA

Section 148Section 260

appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter ‘the Act’) is on two counts of additions made on allegations of bogus purchasers. The first amount i.e. `49,10,442/- which was upheld by the CIT(A) but set aside by the ITAT whereas, on the second ... lower appellate authorities concurred that the additions were not justified. On the second addition, the ITAT further noticed that the basis i.e. allegations of bogus purchasers and bogus invoices levelled by the customs authorities were the subject matter of the appeal made to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which

Jewelry Unlimited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 23(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 653/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Pradip N. Kapasi, Ld.ARFor Respondent: N. Hemalatha, Ld. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

Commissioner of Income- Tax (Appeals)-33 [CIT(A)], Mumbai, Appeal No.CIT(A)- 33/Rg.23/17/89/90/91/2015 dated 14/11/2017 qua confirmation of certain additions on account of alleged bogus purchases. The assessment for all ITA.Nos.650-653/Mum/2018 Jewelry Unlimited Assessment Years- 2007-08 to 2010-11 these years has been framed ... read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since common issue of estimation of addition against alleged bogus purchase is involved in all the appeals, the same are being disposed-off by way of this common order for the sake of convenience & brevity. 2. The facts as emerging

Jewelry Unlimited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 23(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 652/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2018AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Pradip N. Kapasi, Ld.ARFor Respondent: N. Hemalatha, Ld. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

Jewelry Unlimited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 23(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 650/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2018AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Pradip N. Kapasi, Ld.ARFor Respondent: N. Hemalatha, Ld. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

Mubarak Hussain Shaikh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 26(2)(3), Mumbai

Appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 645/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Awadhesh Kumar, Ld.ARFor Respondent: N. Hemalatha, Ld. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147

Mumbai, Appeal No. CIT(A)-38/ITO- 26(2)(3)/IT.525/2015-16 dated 30/06/2017 qua confirmation of certain additions on account of alleged bogus purchases. The assessment for ITA.No.645/Mum/2018 Mubarak Hussain Shaikh Assessment Year- 2010-11 impugned AY was framed by Ld. Income Tax Officer 26(2)(3), Mumbai ... read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act,1961 on 29/01/2016 wherein the assessee has been saddled with addition on account of alleged bogus purchases for Rs.21,01,122/-. The only ground pressed before us is Ground Number-3 which is related with estimation against alleged bogus purchases

Pankaj Kishor Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stand partly allowed

ITA 966/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 966/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Pankaj Kishor Shah Ito-25(2)(2), बनाम/ 7/8, Neel Kamal, Pratyakshakar Bhawan, Roshan Nagar, Borivali (W), Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Vs. Mumbai-400 092 Mumbai-400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Acpps 1076 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Hemalatha N. सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 05.03.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 21.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 30.12.2016 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: I. 1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal) - 44 ("The Cit (A)") Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') Without Affording The Appellant A Proper Opportunity Of Cross Examination.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Hemalatha N

Section 143(3)Section 234B

individual engaged in the business of manufacturing of spring steel sheet metal components. This ground relates to disallowance of Rs 11,74,608/- as bogus purchases and consequent addition of the same amount. The Assessing Officer has received information from the Sales Tax department that the assessee has shown purchases ... sales. He proceeded to hold that the disallowance should be restricted to 17.5% of the gross profit shown by the assessee, on the bogus purchase. 7. Against the above order, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 8. I have heard the learned departmental representative. None appeared on behalf

Har Gobind & Sons, Mumbai vs. ITO 31(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 1108/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)

hence the said ground is dismissed as not pressed. The remaining grounds relate to the addition of Rs.35.28 lakhs relating to alleged bogus purchases. 3. The assessee is a partnership firm and is engaged in the business of manufacture and export of diamond studded jewellery. The assessing officer received information ... aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and direct the AO to restrict the addition to 5% of the value of alleged bogus purchases made from M/s Mohit International. 14. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order has been pronounced in the Court

ITO, WD-29(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Maakali Enterprise, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1412/KOL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri S.Dasgupta, Addl. CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri D.Bhaumik, Advocate & Shri S.K.Saha, FCA

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

order of assessment was passed u/s 143(3) of the Act on 29.12.2010. The AO in the said order dated 29.12.2010 disallowed as bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.10,37,732/-, labour charges to the tune of 71,81,150 and bogus sundry creditors to the tune of Rs.53

M/S. Neminath Electricals, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 79/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak/Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg

Section 148

plethora of decisions of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal, the 4 M/s. Neminath Electricals addition may be restricted to 10% of the bogus purchases. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Pune Bench of Tribunal in bunch of appeals with lead ... assessment year 2010-11, order dated 28-04-2017 and pointed out that at best 10% of GP rate may be applied on alleged bogus purchases. 7. Ld. DR for the Revenue relied on the orders of AO/CIT(A). 8. I heard both the sides on the solitary issue

Income Tax Officer vs. M/S. Maharashtra Industries & Re-Rolling Mills, Nashik

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

ITA 2972/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj GargFor Respondent: Shri Sanket Joshi

Section 143(3)Section 148

case and in law, the CIT(A)-1, Nashik was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.14,63,641/- on account of alleged bogus purchases from Hawala dealers/parties. 1.2 Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A)-1, Nashik was justified ... assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, the AO made entire addition of Rs.14,63,641/- on account of bogus purchases. 4. Aggrieved with the order of AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) after elaborately discussing various judgments

ITO 31(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Gold Finger Establishment, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Department as well as the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4212/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 69C

inflated the purchases to reduce his profit and made addition of Rs.66,09,022/- as inflated purchases and Rs.1,14,16,135/- as bogus purchases and added the same to the income of the assessee under section 69C of the Act. 5. In the appellate proceedings ... been routed through the bank accounts. Further, it is not the case of the assessing officer that the assessee has indulged in accounting of bogus purchases. When the assessee submitted that he could not have effected the sales without making corresponding purchases, the A 0 has taken the view that

Ggs Designers & Fabricators Private Limited, Kalyan vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Kalyan

ITA 264/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 264/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri K. Lal Kaka, ARFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemlatha, DR

Section 143(1)

from the Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra who gave names and addresses and other relevant details of certain persons who had provided entries for bogus purchase bills to a large number of tax payers. This information also contained the details of the beneficiaries of such bogus purchases. Since the name