“bogus purchases”

Waman Hari Pethe Jewllers, Mumbai vs. ACIT 16(3)

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA no

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5682, 5681 & 5683/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13)

from DGIT(Inv) , Mumbai wherein it was stated that information was received I.T.A. No.5681 to 5683/Mum/2016 from Sales Tax Department , Government of Maharashtra regarding bogus purchases/ Hawala transactions , wherein the assessee was listed as beneficiary of the aforesaid accommodation entries towards bogus purchases. The assessee was stated ... substantiated and Rs. 29,139/- being 10% depreciation on capital nature of expenditure, on the balance amount of purchases appeared in the list of bogus purchases. AO perused the material on record and found that the appellant is one the beneficiary of such bogus bill as per the list supplied

Ganpat Ghevarchand Mutha, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1)(3), Mumbai

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5441/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

reopening of the completed assessment under section 147 of the income tax act as well as sustaining GP additions@ 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases as unexplained income. 4. We have heard Ld. DR and we have also gone through the orders passed by the revenue authorities as well ... while relying upon the judgements of Hon’ble High Court had rightly come to the conclusion by estimating the gross profit of the alleged bogus purchases @ 12.5%. We further noticed that this ground raised by the assessee was partly allowed by the Ld. CIT(A), wherein directions were given

Vaishali Prakash Muni, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 27(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act. 2. In all these three appeals, assessee is aggrieved for upholding addition of 12.5% in respect of alleged bogus purchases. Facts and circumstances in all the three years are common, therefore, all the three appeals were heard together and are now being decided ... Assessing Officer can't treat the purchase as bogus. However, learned AO did not agree and made adhoc addition of 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases in all the years under consideration. 6. By the impugned order, CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO against which assessee

Bhupendra M. Mundada, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal in both the years are allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Bhupendra M. Mundada, Vs. Dcit – Circle 2(2) Room No.5, Maharaja Chawal Mumbai Maharaja Apartment Compound Opp. Telephone Exchange S.V. Road, Malad (W) Mumbai – 400 064 Pan/Gir No.Aadpm3710A Appellant) .. Respondent)

r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. In both the appeals, assessee is aggrieved for addition of 100% on account of bogus purchases under the head ‘unexplained investment’ in purchases. Shri Bhupendra M. Mundada 3. It was contended by learned AR that all details desired ... books of accounts were not rejected. Various judicial pronouncements of the Tribunal were placed on record wherein addition on account of the bogus purchases has been confirmed to the extent of 12.5%. As the facts and circumstances in the instant case are same, respectfully following the decision

Ion Exchange Waterleau Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 6(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2009-10 Ion Exchange Waterleau Ltd Ito-6(3)(2), Ion House, 4Th Floor, Dr. E. Room No.503, 5Th Floor, बनाम/ Moses Road, Mahalakshmi, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400011 M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aabci4403P "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri R.R.V.Raghavan राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai-Dr

assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 04/05/2016 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, confirming the assessment order with respect to alleged bogus purchases from M/s NB Enterprises, ignoring the stock record, transportation bills and the payment was made through banking channel. 2. During hearing, the ld. counsel ... during the relevant time, was Rs.38,15,84,089/- and the Ld. Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs.8,48,728/- on account of bogus purchases. It was contended that the necessary documents like stock register, purchase details and evidences of transportation of goods were duly furnished by the assessee

M/S.Sagar Impex, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 25(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as pronounced in the open court in the presence of both the parties at the conclusion of the hearing on 18th April, 2018

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Ram Lal Negi: (A.Y : 2012-13)

appeal, but the solitary dispute relates to an ad hoc addition of Rs.44,71,025/- sustained by the CIT(A), being 12.5% of the bogus purchases. 3. Briefly put, the relevant facts are that the appellant before us is a partnership firm which is engaged in the business of import

DCIT Cir 2, Kalyan vs. Jayprakash N Lakhani, Ulhasnagar

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Shri Jayprakash N Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Vs. Lakhani, F-212, Udyog Kalyan, 2Nd Floor, Mohan Vihar, Near Vithal Wadi, Plaza, Khadakpada, Ulhasnagar-421003 Wayale Nagar, Kalyan (W),- 421301 Pan No. Aakpl5145M Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Ms. Arju Garodia, Dr Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 21/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/04/2018

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)- 3, Thane, erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,41,13,995/- made on account of bogus purchase, despite holding that the purchases were not genuine and the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions. Shri Jayprakash N. Lakhani ... Medica (2001) 117 Taxman 628 (Delhi) and made an addition of Rs.1,94,49,357/- towards bogus purchases. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 22.11.2016 held at page 18-19: “From

Shivram Bholanath Shukla, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 26(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment year 2009-

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sh. Sivram B. Shukla, The Ito 26(3)(2), (Proprietor Of Sharp Rubber), Room No. 508, 5Th Floor, 1, Lal Mohammed Compound, C-11, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Khairani Road, Andheri (East), Vs. B.K.C., Bandra (W), Mumbai - 400072 Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Ammps1931Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish J Sheth (Ar) Revenue By : Ms. N. Hemalatha (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 18/04/2018

received, the AO asked the assessee to explain as to why the purchases made from the said parties should not be treated as bogus purchases and the amount should not be added back to its income. In response thereof the authorized representative filed the bank statements along with copy ... cogent evidence to prove that the questioned purchases were made from the aforesaid parties, made addition of 25% of the total amount of bogus purchases holding that the assessee had purchased the material from the parties other than the parties mentioned in the books of account. The addition was made

Juniper Hotels P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT WD 10(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Juniper Hotels P. Ltd. Addl. Commissioner Off Western Express Of Income Tax-10(1) Vs. Highway, Santacruz (E) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mumbai-400055. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaecs6336E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sunil Bhandari, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Arju Garodia, Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/04/2018

course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) received information from the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra that the assessee had made bogus purchases of raw materials worth Rs.64,985/- from Ridhi Sidhi Enterprises. The assessee submitted before the AO that it had made purchases of the materials through ... receipt, inward register. The AO thus relied on the information received from the Sales Tax Department and made a disallowance of Rs.64,985/- towards bogus purchases. 3.1 In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to 12% of the sales. 3.2 Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee

ACIT 13(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Technotrade Impex India P Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

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

Assessment Year 2011-12. We find that the Assessing Officer in the course of the Assessment Proceedings noticed that assessee is a beneficiary of bogus purchase bills issued by suspicious dealers listed by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Department. The Assessing Officer required the assessee to prove the purchase transactions with ... confirmed by the vigilance Department of MCGM. It is also submitted that sales are not doubted and therefore no addition can be made toward bogus purchases as all the purchases were genuine. However, Assessing Officer rejected the submissions of the assessee. Assessing Officer brought entire purchases made from the parties

ACIT 13(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Technotrade Impex India P Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue and cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

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

Assessment Year 2011-12. We find that the Assessing Officer in the course of the Assessment Proceedings noticed that assessee is a beneficiary of bogus purchase bills issued by suspicious dealers listed by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Department. The Assessing Officer required the assessee to prove the purchase transactions with ... confirmed by the vigilance Department of MCGM. It is also submitted that sales are not doubted and therefore no addition can be made toward bogus purchases as all the purchases were genuine. However, Assessing Officer rejected the submissions of the assessee. Assessing Officer brought entire purchases made from the parties

DCIT Cir 4, Thane vs. Naryan Kutty Karappan Kuzhiel, Palghar

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

assessing the total income at Rs.1,39,57,440/- thereby making additions to the tune of Rs.94,33,521/- on account of bogus purchases from some parties. The assessee himself, during the course of assessment proceedings after a query from the AO to prove the purchases, expressed his inability ... support of his conclusion. 5. The Ld. D.R. vehemently submitted before us that the assessee was undoubtedly resorted to availing the entries of bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.94,33,521/- from various parties which were declared as suspicious dealers by the Government of Maharashtra. The mere admission

Ansh Merchandise P Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.6458/Mum/2014 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Ansh Merchandise Private Dcit 5(2) Ltd, Aayakar Bhavan, Office No. 211, Balaji Arcade Mumbai-400020 V. Near Sejal Glass, S.V. Road, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400067 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabcn8176E (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

Commodities and investment in Equity Shares". 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has again severely erred in treating genuine purchase as bogus purchase amounting to Rs. 19,69,43,883/- as by approving the unfair and unreasonable stand taken by learned assessing officer of considering genuine purchase ... bogus purchase. The learned assessing office has made very high pitched assessment order. 3. The appellant craves to add, amend or alter the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged

DCIT 25(1), Mumbai vs. Nipun I Thakkar, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and issue raised by the assessee is partly allowed

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

Rs.44,92,600/- as against Rs.2,99,50,670/- as made by the AO under section 69C of the Act towards the bogus purchases. 2 Shri Nipun I. Thakkar 3. The assessee also filed application under rule 27 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 dated 15.02.17 raising the following ... appeal of the assessee was partly allowed by Ld. CIT(A) by 4 Shri Nipun I. Thakkar sustaining the addition in respect of bogus purchases at 15% and the assessee without filing the appeal against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) supported the order

Jitendra M Kitavat, Mumbai vs. ITO 18(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result,appeals filed by the AO are rejected and the appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7049 & 7050/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Ays: 2009-10 & 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Jitendra M. Kitavat Ito 18(1)(5) Prop. Of M/S. Jivraj Exports Mumbai. 61, Purnima Apartment Vs. 43, Ridge Road, Mumbai-400 006. Pan: Aabpk9960C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील संसंसंसं././././I.T.A./7099 & 7102/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Ay.S: 2009-10 & 2007-08 अपील अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Ito 18(1)(5) Vs. Jitendra M. Kitavat Mumbai. Mumbai-400 006 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-Cit-Dr Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya

person of his group had admitted, under oath during the course of search and seizure proceedings,that they were providing accommodation entries for bogus purchases, through their various benami concerns.On the basis of the information received,the AO held that the assessee had obtained non-genuine bills form following five ... case of M/s. Vama International(ITA.s/7315-7317/Mum/2016,AY.s2013-14,2012-13,2011-12,dtd.15/2/2018).In that case the Tribunal had deliberated upon identical issue i.e.alleged bogus purchases from BJ group. 6.Here,we would like to mention that identical issue was decided by us while adjudicating the appeals filed

B.R. Steel Products Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T.-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Blem/S. B.R. Steel Products Pvt. Ltd. V. A.C.I.T – 2(1) C. 39/B, Ttc Industrial Area, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Turbhe Mahpe Road, Navi Mumbai – 400 705

assessing the income at ₹.1,93,25,670/-. Subsequently based on the information received from DGIT(Inv.) and the Sales Tax Department regarding bogus purchases made by assessee company from M/s. Jain Trading Corporation, Assessment was reopened by issue of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Notice ... Since the assessment was reopened based on the information of DGIT(Inv.) Mumbai wherein the information obtained from Sales Tax Department regarding bogus purchases made by the assessee from M/s. Jain Trading Corporation the Assessing Officer prima-facie has reason to believe that the income had escaped assessment therefore

Shantivijay Jeweles Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 8(3), Mumbai

RAJENDRA, AM- अनुसार Vide its order dated 27/10/2017, the Tribunal recalled its order,dtd.11/01/2017,with regard to ground number one which deals with bogus purchases. 2.Assessee-company,engaged in the business of manufacturing of jewellery,filed its return of income declaring the total income of Rs.60.56 lakhs.During the assessment proceedings ... filed copies of the affidavits of the suppliers and relied on various decisions against the said additions on account ITA/1045/Mum/2016-A.Y.11-12 Shantivijay Jewels Ltd. of bogus purchases. On hearing the same and after obtaining the remand report of the AO on the said affidavits, he partly allowed the appeal

DCIT Cir 1, Kalyan vs. Maharashtra Steel Fabricators and Erectors, Thane

In the result this appeal by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

without appreciating the fact that the assessee firm had furnished inaccurate particulars of income in its original return filed by claiming admittedly bogus purchases". 2 Maharashtra Steel Fabricators and Electors 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... considering the return filed by the assessee in response to notice u/s. 148 as suo moto revised return offering the bogus purchase despite the fact that the department was in possession of the information and the bogus purchase of the assessee had already come to light /exposed. 3. The order