← 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

DCIT 25(1), Mumbai vs. Ajay Arvindbhai Khatri, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2278/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-25(1), M/S Ajay Arvindbhai Khatri, Room No.202, 02Nd Floor, 30/31, Borivali Shopping बनाम/ Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Centre, Chandavarkar Road, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Borivali (West), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400092 Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaefa7242G Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By M/S. Dinkel Hariya

Section 69C

Appeal) has taken an unreasonable view ignoring the factual matrix and the Ld. Assessing Officer was justified in making the addition of such bogus purchases. It was also contended that notices were issued and served upon such parties but no reply was filed by them. 2.1. On the other hand ... already declared GP of 3 Ajay Arvindbhai Khatri 24.03% and the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) justifiably restricted the addition @ 15% of such bogus purchases over and above the GP already declared by the assessee. It was also pointed out that no cross appeal has been filed

Nadeem Yusuf Sara, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 21(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed

ITA 6935/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 133(6)

assessee has filed these appeals before the Tribunal. 5. The first issue relates to the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases. I noticed that the assessee has placed reliance on the purchase invoices available with it and payments made to the parties. The assessee could ... modify the order passed by the learned CIT(A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to estimate the profit from impugned bogus purchases @ 10% on the alleged bogus purchases, which will take care of revenue leakages, if any. We order accordingly. 9. The next issue contested

Vishal Tube Industries, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 19(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 6527/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6527/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Vishal Tube Industries Ito-19(3)(5), 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Badrika Ashram Building, बनाम/ Ground Floor, 92, Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400 007 Nanubhai Desai Road, Vs. Dhetwadi Main Road, Mumbai-400 004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aadfv 5562 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. N. Hemalatha सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 26.03.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 26.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 25.09.2017 & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Issue Raised Relates To The Validity Of Reopening Of Assessment & Addition @ 12.50% Of Alleged Bogus Purchases.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

pertains to the assessment year 2009-10. 2. The issue raised relates to the validity of reopening of assessment and addition @ 12.50% of alleged bogus purchases. 2 Vishal Tube Industries 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for A.Y.2009- ... income at Rs.5,06,750/-. In the assessment so completed, the Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs.4,78,194/- on account of bogus purchases. 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, to ascertain the genuineness of purchases shown in the accounts, notices

Income Tax Officer vs. Jayprakash Prabhakaran Nair, Nashik

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

ITA 2729/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Dr. Vivek AggarwalFor Respondent: Shri Sanket Joshi
Section 143(3)

circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)- 2, Nashik was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.34,22,536/ - on account of alleged bogus purchases from Hawala dealers /parties? 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Nashik was justified in deleting the purchases treated as bogus, when the assessee

Khan Afzalhusain Mohd.Saie, Nashik vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

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

ITA 2709/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2708 & 2709/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Chaware
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

adjournment. However, we find that the issue raised in the present appeals stand covered by earlier orders of Tribunal on the said issue of bogus purchases. Accordingly, we proceed to decide the present appeals after hearing the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue. 3. Both the appeals of assessee ... been accepted that the purchases are genuine under such circumstances there is no need of any estimation of Gross Profit on alleged bogus purchase. Entire addition needs to be deleted. 5. The issue in grounds of appeal No.1 and 2 raised by the assessee is against re-assessment proceedings initiated

Khan Afzalhusain Mohd.Saie, Nashik vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

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

ITA 2708/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2708 & 2709/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Chaware
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

adjournment. However, we find that the issue raised in the present appeals stand covered by earlier orders of Tribunal on the said issue of bogus purchases. Accordingly, we proceed to decide the present appeals after hearing the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue. 3. Both the appeals of assessee ... been accepted that the purchases are genuine under such circumstances there is no need of any estimation of Gross Profit on alleged bogus purchase. Entire addition needs to be deleted. 5. The issue in grounds of appeal No.1 and 2 raised by the assessee is against re-assessment proceedings initiated

Sanjay Popatlal Bedmutha, Manmad vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2595/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 148

assessee made purchases from couple of suppliers namely, Eleven Impex and Omkar Trading Company amounting to Rs.5,55,152/-. Eventually, the AO added entire bogus purchases to the total income of the assessee and determined the income at Rs.12,68,702/-. 5. In the First Appellate Proceedings ... transport receipts, inward and outward register etc. The AO held that the purchases are bogus and made an addition of R.5,55,192/- as bogus purchases. 5.3 It is observed from the assessment order that the assessee has neither complied to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer

Rekha Ganesh Malgi, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2594/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250

payment to impugned purchases parties. In such circumstances, in my considered view the addition made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.15,20,355/- as bogus purchases is in order and is upheld.” Considering the fact that the assessee did not submit the relevant details in support of the trail ... that in view of the plethora of decisions of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal, the addition may be restricted to 10% of the bogus purchases. The Ld. AR for the assessee has placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Pune Bench of Tribunal in bunch of appeals

Income-Tax Officer vs. Jitendra Ravindra Malpure, Nashik

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2478/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Modi, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Sanket Joshi &
Section 148

case, the Learned CIT(A)-1, Nashik was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.19,26,253/- for A.Y.2010-11 on account of alleged bogus purchases from Hawala dealers/parties. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A)-1, Nashik was justified in deleting ... assessee. AO found that assessee made purchases from the following parties. Details are given below : Name of the party Amount of alleged bogus purchases Bharat Enterprises 1,17,265/- Kushal Impex 17,035/- Aroma Industries 45,007/- Leo Impex 5,53,540/- Laxmi Enterprises 11,27,608/- Picasso Mercantile

Smt. Shingi Kalpana Rakhabchand, Ahmednagar vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2474/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2474/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Smt. Shingi Kalpana Rakhabchand, Nutan Industrial Corporation, P.O. Box – 57, Kopargaon, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ahmednagar …. Pan: Aeyps6182D Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Chaware
Section 143(3)Section 147

circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in making the addition of Rs.7,55,300/- on account of alleged bogus purchases by completely disregarding the appellant’s contention in this regard. 3. The assessee is in appeal against initiation of re-assessment proceedings under section ... second issue raised is against addition made on account of alleged bogus purchases of ₹ 7,55,300/-. 4. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the Assessing Officer had received information from the Sales Tax Department that the assessee was the recipient from hawala transaction parties

Shri Ramesh Manshankar Joshi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 30(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 5368/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Ramesh M Joshi, Assessee–in-personFor Respondent: N.Hemalatha, Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Appeal No.CIT(A)-41/IT-30/15-16 dated 01/06/2017 qua 2 Ramesh Manshankar Joshi Assessment Year: 2009-10 confirmation of certain additions on account of alleged bogus purchases. The assessment for impugned AY was framed by Ld. Income Tax Officer Ward 30(3)(1), Mumbai [AO] u/s 143(3) read with section ... returned income of Rs.1.99 Lacs e-filed by the assessee on 16/09/2009. The subject matter of this appeal is addition on account of alleged bogus purchases and adhoc expenditure disallowance. The original return filed by the assessee was processed u/s 143(1). 2.1 Facts leading to the same are that

DCIT 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sunrise Metallic (India) P.Ld, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3628/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit 4(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Sunrise Metallic R.No.649, 6Th Floor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Shiva Industrial Estate, Mumbai – 400 020 Near Tata Power House Lake Road, Bhandup (W) Mumbai – 400 078 Pan/Gir No.Aajcs2965E Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 147

adduced by the appellant have neither been disproved nor any concrete documentary evidence has been brought against the assessee which may substantiate allegation of bogus purchases. Thus, it is a case where the purchases from above parties have been treated as bogus for no ostensible, lawful and any cogent reason ... suspicious hawala dealers and on the basis of such presumptions, the AO treated the above referred purchases from the said dealers as bogus purchases and added the same to the income of the assessee. In fact, there is no whispers in the assessment order that the AO has seen

Sunil Pravinchandra Joshi, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(1)(2), Mumbai

Appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7412/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: U.C.Bothra,Ld.ARFor Respondent: N.Hemalatha, Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

/ITO32(3)(4)/ITA-05/14-15 dated 2 Sunil Pravinchandra Joshi Assessment Year: 2009-10 10/10/2016 qua confirmation of certain additions on account of alleged bogus purchases. The assessment for impugned AY was framed by Ld. Income Tax Officer-25(1)(2), Mumbai [AO] u/s 143(3) read with section ... 31/10/2014 wherein the income of the assessee has been determined at Rs.7.25 Lacs after addition of Rs.2.70 Lacs on account of alleged bogus purchases as against returned income of Rs.4.55 Lacs filed by the assessee on 26/09/2009. This quantum addition on account of alleged bogus purchases is the sole subject

Kailash M Jogani., Mumbai vs. Income Tax Ward-18(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 6623/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: S.P.Mithani,Ld.ARFor Respondent: N.Hemalatha, Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

/IT-422/ITO-18(2)(1)/15-16 dated 2 Kailash M.Jogani Assessment Year: 2010-11 16/08/2017 qua confirmation of certain additions on account of alleged bogus purchases. The assessment for impugned AY was framed by Ld. Income Tax Officer Ward-18(2)(1), Mumbai [AO] u/s 143(3) read with section ... impugned AY. The reassessment proceedings were initiated pursuant to receipt of certain information from Sales Tax Department and DGIT (investigation) regarding dealers indulging in bogus purchase bills without doing any actual business and it was noted that the assessee stood beneficiary of such bogus purchase bills to the tune

ITO WD 2(4), Thane vs. Parth Traders, Thane

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal and assessee's cross objection are dismissed and the assessee's appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4735/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4735/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito, Ward 2(4) M/S. Parth Traders Room No. 12, 6Th Floor, 63, Mira Co-Op. Hsg. Society, बनाम/ Ashar It Park, Wagle Indl. Estate, Near Asmita Super Market, Vs. Road No.16Z, Thane-400 604 Naya Nagar, Mira Road (E), Thane-401 107 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabfp 4130 F (Revenue) (Assessee) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5211/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & ""या"ेपक सं./Co No. 157/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 4735/Mum/2015) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) बनाम/ M/S. Parth Traders Ito, Ward 2(4) Thane-401 107 Thane-400 604 Vs. (Assessee) (Revenue) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Pooja Swarop ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. P. Mehta सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 20.03.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 22.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: These Are Cross Appeals By The Revenue & Assessee & Cross Objection By The Assessee Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Dated 11.06.2015 & Pertain To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2 M/S. Parth Traders 2. In The Revenues Appeal, The Issue Raised Is That The Ld. Commissioner Of Income

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja SwaropFor Respondent: Shri G. P. Mehta
Section 133(6)

Revenues appeal, the issue raised is that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not sustaining 100% disallowance of bogus purchase by the assessing officer. 3. In the assessee's appeal, the issue raised is that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in sustaining 25% disallowance ... bogus purchase. 4. In the cross objection, the issue raised is that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has not appreciated that assessee has not been allowed the opportunity to cross examine hawala dealers. It has further been stated that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has obtained

Hitesh H. Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 4756/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shrir. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4756, 4757& 4758/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10, 2010-11& 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri NeelkanthFor Respondent: Shri M. C. Omi
Section 147

confirming the profit element to 12.5% and further, reducing the GP declared in the said assessment year and erred in treating the sane as bogus purchase. 5585, 5586 & 5587 /Mum/2017& I.T.A. No. 5942/Mum/2014 Hitesh H. Shah & Others 2. Learned CIT(Appeal) erred in ignoring the detailed evidences brought on record ... opened u/s 147 on account of information received from the Sales tax Department, State of Maharashtra of certain persons who have provided entries of bogus purchase bills to tax payers. The AO carried out investigations and after seeking reply from the 5585, 5586 & 5587 /Mum/2017& I.T.A. No. 5942/Mum/2014 Hitesh

Keyur S. Mehta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-17(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the ground No

ITA 579/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singh

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj R. Toprani with Ms. Krupa P. Toprani (AR)For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57Section 57(3)

business of the Appellant. 5. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in upholding the additions on account of alleged Bogus Purchases made from M/s. Jewel Diam and M/s. Daksh Diamond amounting to Rs. 19,62,188/- to the total income of the Appellant as unexplained expenditure ... passing the re-assessment order made disallowance under section 36(1)(iii) for Rs. 2,97,302/-, addition under section 69C on account of bogus purchase of Rs. 19,62,188/-, from Jewel Diam and Daksha Diamonds, disallowed interest expenses of Rs. 2,48,690/- under section

Super Steam Boiler Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir. 7(2), Mumbai

Appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 6093/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6093/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Super Stream Boiler Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax 101, Sheetal Apartments Circle 7(2) बनाम/ Prabhodhan Thakare Marg Aaykar Bhawan Vs. Sewree West Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-5939-F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Tanzil R.Padvekar, Ld. Ar Revenue By : V.Vidhyadhar, Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / : 13/03/2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 21 /03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Tanzil R.Padvekar, Ld. ARFor Respondent: V.Vidhyadhar, Ld. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Income-Tax (Appeals)- 14 [CIT(A)], Mumbai Appeal No.CIT(A)-14/IT-274/14-15 dated 25/07/2016 qua confirmation of certain addition on account of alleged bogus purchases. The assessment for impugned AY was framed 2 Super Stream Boiler Engineers Private Ltd Assessment Year 2009-10 by Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income ... assessment u/s 143(3) read with Section 147 for impugned AY on 30/09/2014 at Rs.81,04,530/- after addition of certain alleged bogus purchases for Rs.41,53,188/-. The original return was filed on 30/09/2009 at Rs.39,51,340/- which was accepted in scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) on 16/11/2011

Precise Electricals, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-3, Thane

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

ITA 2622/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha () S.A. Nos 45, 46 & 47/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of I.T.A Nos.2622 & 2623/Mum/2016 & Ita No.6230/Mum/2016 ) (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2011-12 & 2010-11) &

Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

reopened u/s 147 on the basis of information received from sales-tax department of Maharashtra which suggested that the assessee is the beneficiary of bogus purchase bills issued by hawala / suspicious dealers. Accordingly issued notice u/s 148 calling for return of income. In response to notice, the assessee, vide letter ... below. The only issue to be resolved from assessee’s appeals is whether addition can be 4 ITA 2622 & 2623/Mum/2016 made towards 100% of bogus purchase or only profit element embedded in such purchases. The issue is no longer res integra. The co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Mumbai in several

Triveni Realities, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 2, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas appeal of assessee is allowed in part

ITA 3782/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R C Sharma & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year : 2010-11 Triveni Realities Acit Cent. Cir 2, 001, Ground Floor, Now With Dcit 25(1) Vs. Balaji Business Park, Plot No.3 &5, Mumbai Survey No.785, Marol, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 Pan Aafft1575N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit 25(1) Triveni Realities Mumbai Mumbai 400059 Vs. Pan Aafft1575N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri M C Omi Ningshan
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 48(5)

goods, accordingly added entire amount of such purchases in assessee’s income. 3. By the impugned order CIT(A) restricted the addition of bogus purchases to the extent of Rs.64,95,711/-. Against this order of CIT(A) both the Revenue and assessee are in further appeal before ... assessee is to be accepted. 9. As per learned AR, addition if any should be restricted to 2% of the alleged bogus purchases as held in the case of the assessee's group concern - M/s. Triveni Homes in ITA No. 3780/Mum/2017 & 4355/Mum/2017 vide order dated 13/02/2018 under identical facts