“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

Shri Chandra Mohan Sachdeva, Bhopal vs. The ACIT 1(2), Bhopal

In the result, the appeals in I

ITA 857/IND/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradआ.अ.सं /.I.T.A. Nos.857 & 858/Ind/2016 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2006-07 Shri Chandra Mohan Assistant Commissioner Sachdeva, Of Income-Tax, E-5/59, Arera Colony, Vs. 1(2), Bhopal Bhopal

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 68

conducted and the difference amount of Rs. 4,26,593/- was added back to the total income of the assessee as bogus purchase. On perusal of salary sheet and also the profit and loss account, it was found that the assessee has debited house rent allowance amounting ... details of purchases and generation of birds and eggs in daily stock sheets which were found during survey proceedings. The AO made additions towards bogus purchases in both the years on different footings as under :- A-I) A.Y. 2005-06: Rs.7,61,520/- Details of opening stock purchases/generation, sales

Jitendra D. Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 27(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 759/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Dharmil Jhaveri, ARFor Respondent: V Vidhyadhar, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the addition made by the AO by applying the profit rate at 12.5% of the bogus purchase. For this assessee has raised following ground: - “The learned CIT(A), confirmed the ad’hoc addition @ 12.5 on the quantum of purchases affected from ... assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the purchase and accordingly, he made addition of unproved purchase at the rate of 12.5% of bogus purchases i.e. Rs. 20,92,650/- to the return income of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred the appeal before CIT(A), who confirmed the addition made

Mani Jewel, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 24(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 721/MUM/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Narendra K Patel, ARFor Respondent: V Vidhyadhar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 154

against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in estimating the profit at the rate of 25% of the bogus purchases. For this assessee has raised the following ground No. 1: - “The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals -3, Surat "CIT(A)-3, Surat", erred in confirming ... through a web of benami concerns, run and operated by them, provided accommodation entries to various parties in respect of bogus unsecured loans and bogus purchases. Various evidences found and seized from the premises of the said Shri Gautam Jain and others, which proved the above facts. Thus, these diamond

Mokalsar Steel Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 5(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 720/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: V Vidhyadhar, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

this appeal of assessee is against the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in making addition of 100% of bogus purchases at ₹ 19,03,778/-. For this assessee has raised the following grounds: - “Ground I - Addition @100% of Hawala Purchases ... needs to be deleted. Ground 2— Earlier Year was assessed @ 12.5% The Ld. CIT(A) erred in understanding the fact that Addition from bogus purchases were restricted @ 12.5% and considering principle of consistency, CIT(A) should have restricted the addition to 12.5% Ground 3- No Opportunity to Cross - Examine

Mubarak Hussain Shaikh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 26(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 644/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Awadhesh Kumar, ARFor Respondent: V Vidhyadhar, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

issue on merits is as regards to the order of CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in adding 25% of bogus purchases as profit of the business. 4. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee is engaged in the business of processing of Iron washers of various types ... assessee 3 could not produce the evidence regarding transportation of goods or movement of goods, the AO was of the view that these are bogus purchase for inflation of purchase by obtaining accommodation entries. Accordingly, he disallowed 25% of bogus purchases as profit and added to the return income

Rahul Cables Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -3, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1170/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.1168 To 1170/Pun/2017 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri S.N. DoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)

Pr.CIT is unsustainable as the Pr. CIT invoked section 263 of the Act against the AO’s order adding only 20% of the bogus purchases in the reassessment. Assessee argues that AO’s decision constitutes one of the plausible views in the matter and a debatable issue. Further, Ground No.2 ... beneficiary of the same and made purchases of goods from 19 of the parties whose name appear in the list of bogus purchases. The total of such purchases works out to Rs.3,47,78,546/- for the A.Y. 2009-10. As per procedure laid down in the provisions of section

Rahul Cables Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -3, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1169/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 May 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S.N. DoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)

Rahul Cables Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -3, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1168/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 May 2018AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S.N. DoshiFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)

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

ITA 6769/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6769/Mum/2017, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalata

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234A

information from the Sales Tax Department through DGIT(Vig), Mumbai that the assessee had 3 I.T.A. No. 6769/Mum/2017 Shri Tejraj Manroop Chand Tak, procured bogus purchase bills totaling to Rs. 1,04,46,243/- from 5 parties. Consequently, the AO issued notice u/s 148 of the I.T Act and subsequent ... could be adopted. Given the facts and circumstances of the instant case, I find it reasonable to estimate the gross profit on the alleged bogus purchases at 12.5%. 4.3.2. The action of the AO in making an addition of 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases is confirmed. This ground

R.S.Petrochem, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Wards 2(3), Kalyan-Dombivali

ITA 5463/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran, Am & Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5463/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemlatha, DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69C

that 3 I.T.A. No. 5463/Mum/2017 R. S. Petrochem, Ld. CIT(A) also erred in confirming the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases from so called hawala dealers without verifying the case records. 5. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders passed by revenue authorities and submitted

DCIT 32(2), Mumbai vs. N.M. Residency, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 4491/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4491/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit,32(2) बिधम/ M/S. N.M Residency Fressia, R.No. 307, 3Rd Floor, C-13, Gr. Floor, L.M. Road, Vs. Pratakshkar Bhavan, Bkc, Navagoan, Dahisar-W, Bandra, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400068

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala (AR)For Respondent: Shri T. A. Khan (DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 69C

restricting addition of unexplained expenditure 10 Rs.8,95,708/- (@ 8% of Rs.1,11,96,353/-) u/s 69C of the IT. Act on account of bogus purchases, as against the addition of ITA NO.4491/M./2015 A.Y. 2010-11 Rs.1,11,96.353/- made by the AG without appreciating that the assessee ... assessee. Thereafter, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who restricted the claim to the extent of 8% of the said bogus purchase, therefore, the revenue has filed the present appeal before us. ITA NO.4491/M./2015 A.Y. 2010-11 5. We have heard the argument advanced

Plaexe Con Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle1, Kalyan

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 340/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Plaexe Con Services Acit, Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, Wayale Nagar, बनाम/ Manogat, Gajanan Khadak Pada, Kalyan West, Vs. Cooperative Housing Thane-421301 Society, Midc Road Badlapur East, Thane-421301 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaecp9267D

impugned order dated 05/03/2015 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Pune, confirming the addition of Rs.5,42,816/- made on account of alleged bogus purchases. 2. During hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Sanjeev V. Joshi, explained that the assessee is a civil contractor made genuine purchases ... addition was wrongly made. 2.1. On the other hand, Ms. N. Hemalatha, Ld. DR, defended the addition by contending that the assessee made bogus purchases and the transactions were not supported by necessary documents. It was also pleaded that parties were not produced by the assessee for 3 M/s Plaexe

Ashok K. Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 31(1)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 565/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2009-10 Asok K. Shah, Income Tax Officer-31(1)(2), C-25, Sai Baba Enclave, Mumbai, बनाम/ S.V.Road, Vs. Goregaon West, Mumbai-400062 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Akeps3501N

assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 21/09/2017 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, in restricting the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases amounting to Rs.9,60,825/- following the decision from Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Simit P. Seth 356 ITR 451, without appreciating ... 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

Mr.Ajay C. Shah HUF, Prop. M/S.Glass and Hardware, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-26(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7195/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 Mr. Ajay C. Shah, Income Tax Officer, C/O- Ajay C. Shah, Huf, Ward-26(1)(1), बनाम/ 60A/11, Sion Mahavir P.K. Bhavan, C-11, Vs. Chs, Scheme Road No.25C, R.No.703, 7Th Floor, Sion (West), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400062 Bandra-East, Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aahha5664F

29/09/2017 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, confirming the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer at the rate of 12.5% of the bogus purchases of Rs.67,69,335/- made from seven parties as non-genuine purchases, ignoring the details filed by the assessee. 2. During hearing ... 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

Ramniklal Brothers, Thane vs. ITO WD 3(2), Thane

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 7002/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainramniklal Brothers, Pehlaj Kunj Lohar Ali, ……………. Appellant Thane, Maharashtra-400601 Pan-Aaffr8718P V/S

For Appellant: Shri Subodh L. RatnaparthiFor Respondent: Shri N. Hemalatha-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

r.w.s u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) was passed on 11.03.2014, thereby making additions on account of bogus purchases. 3. Aggrieved by the order of assessment, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Considering the facts of both parties ... dismissed the appeal of the assessee and upheld the addition @ 100% on bogus purchases made by the Assessing Officer. ITA no.7002/Mum./2017 Ramniklal Brothers 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred appeal before us on the grounds mentioned hereinabove. 5. At the very

ACIT Cir. 1, Kalyan vs. Thakor Electronic Ltd., Bhiwandi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6427/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6427/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Asst. Cit, Circle-1, M/S. Thakor Electronics Ltd. 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Plot No. P-1, P-3, 1St Floor, बनाम/ Wayale Nagar, Kalyan (W)-421 301 Shree Rajlaxmi Hi-Tech Textile Vs. Park, Bhiwandi, Nashik Bypass Road, Sonale, Bhiwandi-421 302 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabct 4323 M (Revenue) (Assessee) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 6484 & 6485/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S. Thakor Electronics Ltd. Asst. Cit, Circle-1, Plot No. P-1, P-3, 1St Floor, 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, बनाम/ Shree Rajlaxmi Hi-Tech Textile Park, Wayale Nagar, Kalyan (W)-421 301 Vs. Bhiwandi, Nashik Bypass Road, Sonale, Bhiwandi-421 302 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabct 4323 M (Assessee) (Revenue) : Revenue By : Shri V. Justin Assessee By : Shri Tanjil Padvekar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 23.04.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 02.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Cross Appeals By The Assessee & Revenue For Assessment Years 2009-10 & Appeal By The Assessee For Assessment Year 2010-11, Arising Out Of The M/S. Thakor Electronics Ltd. Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) For These Assessment

For Appellant: Shri Tanjil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148

validity of reopening is dismissed as not pressed. 3. The second common issue raised relates to sustenance of addition out of the alleged bogus purchases by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 4. In Revenue’s appeal, the issue raised is that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals ... purchases could not be verified. In view of the above facts, the Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee had inflated its expenses by booking bogus purchases, therefore, the entire purchases of Rs.77,73,415/- and Rs.36,62,945/-, from these parties, were added back to the income of the assessee

Unilex Colours & Chemicals Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the Ld

ITA 1556/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Unilex Colours & Dcit-13(1)(1), Chemicals Ltd. Mumbai बनाम/ 106-107, Advent Atria, Vs. Chincoli Bunder Road, Malad West, Mumbai-400064 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No.Aaacu5230F

Section 234B

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

Chemical Process Piping P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 10(2) Erstwhile, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1036/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 1036 & 1037/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years:2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S Chemical Process Piping Pvt. Ltd. Shri R. M. Madhavi, Cpe Plots, Bsd Marg, Erstwhile Additional Cit- बिधम/ Govandi East, 10(2), Now, Addl Cit Vs. Mumbai-400 088 14(2), Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekhar &For Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajuru, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(2)Section 9(1)(vii)

income of Rs.10,15,59,800/- interalia making the following additions/ disallowances: Sr. Particulars Amount No. 1. Disallowance of bogus purchase Rs.27,92,573/- 2. Disallowance u/s 40(a)(i) of technical/consulting charges paid to foreign parties:- (i) EFE Engineering Pte. Ltd, Singapore Rs.45,36,488/- (ii) Thermo & Plast, Slovania ... assessee before him in context of the aforesaid additions/disallowance made by the A.O, dealt with the same as under:- (i) The disallowance of bogus purchase made by the A.O at Rs.27,92,573/- was restricted by the CIT(A) to an amount of Rs.3,49,072/- (being 12.5% of purchases

DCIT 8(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Steamline Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, these appeals filed by the Revenue stands partly allowed

ITA 5842/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.5842 & 5843/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12) Dy. Cit-8(2)(2), M/S. Steamline Industries Ltd. बनाम/ Room No. 615, M. K. Road, 178/26, Chatrabhuj Khetashi, Mumbai-400 020 Sant Tukaram Road, Masjid Bunder, Vs. Mumbai-400 009 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs 7421 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Justin ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. C. Jain सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 26.04.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 02.05.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Appeals By The Revenue Against The Respective Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) For The Concerned Assessment Years.

For Appellant: Shri V. JustinFor Respondent: Shri R. C. Jain

Section 114Section 131Section 147

erred on facts and in law in giving relief in respect of the amount of addition on account of bogus purchase after noting that appellant failed to negate the information based on enquiry conducted by DGIT(Inv.) Mumbai, as per the list on the Maharashtra Sales Tax Website, were hawala ... erred on facts and in law, in allowing deduction in respect of amount of addition on account of bogus purchases as the parties from M/s. Steamline Industries Ltd. whom purchases were made were hawala dealers and the absolute burden of proof is cast on the assessee and this burden

Sanjib Bothra, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 45, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 208/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

assessee is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,85,81,227/- on account of alleged bogus purchases. At the outset itself it has been brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the assessee that the impugned addition was based ... part of the ld AO with regard to purchases done from them. Hence there is absolutely no case for making any addition towards bogus purchases made from these two parties in the sums of Rs 43,00,960 and Rs 47,97,072/- . 7.2. We find that