← 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

Girijamata Janhit Sevabhavi Sanstha, Aurangabad vs. Income-Tax Officer

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

ITA 236/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.235 & 236/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234B(3)

hands of assessee on account of information received from the Sales Tax Department, wherein list of parties was drawn, who had indulged in making bogus purchases without delivery of goods. The Assessing Officer relied on the affidavits filed by the respective authorities before the Sales Tax Department. However, the plea

Girijamata Janhit Sevabhavi Sanstha, Aurangabad vs. Income-Tax Officer

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

ITA 235/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.235 & 236/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234B(3)

hands of assessee on account of information received from the Sales Tax Department, wherein list of parties was drawn, who had indulged in making bogus purchases without delivery of goods. The Assessing Officer relied on the affidavits filed by the respective authorities before the Sales Tax Department. However, the plea

Krishna Traders, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-2(2), Kalyan

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

ITA 6644/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

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

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148

Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Common grievance of assessee in all the years relate to reopening of assessment and addition made on account of bogus purchases. 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. 4. In all the years under consideration, Income Tax Department got information from Sales ... Department giving name and address of 2 ITA No.6644-6646/Mum/2017 M/s. Krishna Traders dealers who have provided entries for bogus purchases. On the basis of this information, the AO reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s.148. In the assessment framed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147, AO added the entire amount of such purchases

Income-Tax Officer vs. M/S. Maa Saraswat Steel Industries, Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1868/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jha, JCIT
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 148

circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A)-1, Nashik was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.33,00,620 / - 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 ... grounds are inter- connected and the sole controversy is with respect to deleting the addition of Rs.33,00,620/- on account of alleged bogus purchases from Hawala dealers / parties. 4. AO in the re-assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act has noted that information

Surojit Kundu, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 41(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 2321/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 143(3)

Assessment Year: 2013-2014 (2) Disallowance of loading and unloading Rs.25,900/- expenses (3) Disallowance of Pump Drive Expenses Rs.16,040/- (4) Disallowance of bogus purchases Rs.46,786/- (5) Rs.14,60,390/- Undisclosed income 3. Against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3), an appeal

ITO 14(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vinaylene Textile Industries P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the issue stands remitted to the file of the assessing officer

ITA 3240/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3240/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ito-14(3)(2), M/S. Vinaylene Textile Industries 458, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Gala No. 8, 1St Floor, Mumbai-400 020 Kuntal Modi Estate, L.B.S. Marg, Vs. Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400 086 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 1653 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Aarjoo Goradia ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Dr. K. Shivaram & Shri Rahul K. Hakani सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 07.12.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 23.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) & Pertains To The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. "On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.70,00,000/- On A/C Of Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68. The Companies From Which The Assessee Has Accepted Shares Application Money Of Rs.70,00,000/- Were Controlled & 2 Ito Vs. M/S. Vinaylene Textile Industries Pvt. Ltd. Operated By Shri Praveen Kumar Jain, Who Admitted In His Statement Recorded During The Course Of Search & Seizure Action That The Concerns/Companies Controlled By Him Were Only Engaged In Providing Accommodation Entries To Various Parties Of Which The Assessee Is Also One Of The Beneficiaries. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Vary, Omit Or Substitute The Aforesaid Ground Of Appeal At Any Time Before Or At The Time Of Hearing Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Ms. Aarjoo GoradiaFor Respondent: Dr. K. Shivaram &
Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 68

statement he has confirmed that he and his .groups has not carried out any business activities and engaged in providing accommodation entries for bogus purchases, long term capital gain and share application money Shri Praveen Kumar Jain in his statement furnished details of the concerns operated by him. The above

Atman Overseas P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5410/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5410/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Atman Overseas P. Ltd, बिधम/ Ito 6(1)(4) Aayakar Bhavan 505/506, Yogeshwar, 135, Mumbai Vs. Kazi Sayed Street, Masjid Bunder West, Mumbai- 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadca1936D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri V. Justin (Dr) Assessee By: Shri V.N. Rao & Ms. Vyoma Rao सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 29.11.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23.02.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.09.2015, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Ay. 2009-10. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “1. The Learned Cit(A}-12, Mumbai [Cit{A)] Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Itg & Dismissing The Appeal. 2. The Learned C1T(A) Erred In Not Appreciating Facts Of The Case Properly & The Law Applicable Thereto.

For Appellant: Shri V.N. Rao & Ms. Vyoma RaoFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin (DR)
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

holding that merely on the basis of reporter information from an authority and without bringing on record positive evidence to the prove the alleged bogus purchases were wrong, incorrect and unreasonable. 6. The order passed by CIT(A) is illegal and vitiated by law as no adequate opportunity was given ... requested assessee was also provided the reasons recorded on 22.02.2013, vide letter dated 10.02.2014, the same is reproduced as under:- “From the details regarding bogus purchase received from Sales Tax Department, it is seen that M/s. Atman Overseas Pvt. Ltd. has been taken accommodation entries from the following concerns

ITO 18(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rajkumar B Mutreja, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4511/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singhincome Tax Officer 18(3)-1 Shri Rajkumar B. Mutreja 6Th Floor, Earnest House, 70, Green Market, Opp. Vs. Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 Juma Masjid, 021 Mumbai-400 002 Appellant Respondent .. Pan No. Abapm6991R Co No. 92/Mum/2016 (Arising In Ita No. 4511/Mum/2015 A.Y. 2009-10) Shri Rajkumar B. Mutreja Income Tax Officer 18(3)-1 70, Green Market, Opp. Juma 6Th Floor, Earnest House, Vs. Masjid, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 002 Mumbai-400 021 Appellant .. Respondent Revenue By : N Hemalatha, Dr Assessee By : None

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: N Hemalatha, DR
Section 143(3)Section 69C

common issue in these cross appeals of Revenue is as regards to the order of CIT(A) restricting the addition at 25% of the bogus purchases added by the AO under section 69C of the Act amounting to ₹ 21.97 lacs. 2 CO No. 92/Mum/2016 3. Briefly stated facts are that ... received information from the DGIT (Inv) Mumbai, who in turn received information from Sales Tax Department that the assessee is a beneficiary of the bogus purchases / accommodation entry of bogus bills from the following parties: - Hawala Tin Hawala PAN Hawala Dealer name Amount 27410483032V AWTPS0269A Tara Enterprises

Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rajesh Maubhai Chauhan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6934/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 133(6)

revenue is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in granting partial relief to the assessee in respect of addition relating to bogus purchases. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. However a letter was moved by the assessee seeking adjournment on the plea that ... treated the above said purchases as bogus in nature. Since the assessee did not produce stock register, he disallowed entire amount of alleged bogus purchases. 3. The Ld CIT(A), however, restricted the addition to 12.50% of the value of alleged bogus purchases and hence the revenue is aggrieved

Naresh P. Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 18(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 6842/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 133(6)

relates to A.Y. 2009-10. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in confirming the addition relating to alleged bogus purchases. 2. I heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading in ferrous ... purpose of accounting his unaccounted goods. Since, the sales were accepted, the Assessing Officer took the view that the profit embedded in the alleged bogus purchase is required to be assessed in the income tax purpose. Accordingly, by following the decision rendered by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court

Prabhat Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO Cir 27(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 798/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sashank DunduFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar (Sr. DR)

facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.66,94,962/- on account of bogus purchases. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that the assessee was unable to prove ... case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition to the extent of Rs.4,27,338/- by taking the GP @ 6% of the bogus purchases of Rs.71,22,300/- not considering the facts that the entire purchases are bogus. 6. The appellant prays that the order

Late Sushikumar Dwarkanath Ghai, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(4), Kalyan

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6872/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 133(6)

assessee has filed these appeals challenging the orders passed by Ld CIT(A)-3, Thane, wherein he has confirmed the addition relating to alleged bogus purchases made in AY 2010-11 and 2011-12. 2. I heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee is a trader in foam ... that the assessee has declared turnover at Rs.53.23 lakhs and 94.93 lakhs respectively for the year ending 31.3.2010 and 31.3.2011. The value of alleged bogus purchases was only Rs.73,888/- and Rs.1,11,038/- during the years relevant to the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively. So even

Malchand D. Choudhary, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 26(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6846/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 133(6)Section 41(1)

Mumbai and they relate to the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010- 11. The Ld CIT(A) confirmed the addition relating to alleged bogus purchases made in AY 2009-10. However he granted partial relief to the assessee in 2010-11 in respect of additions relating to bogus purchases ... suppliers, but the assessee failed. Hence the AO treated the above said purchases as bogus in nature. However he added 25% value of alleged bogus purchases in AY 2009-10 and disallowed entire amount of alleged bogus purchases in AY 2010-11. The AO also noticed that the alleged bogus

Anil D Agrawal, Mumbai vs. ITO Cir 17(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1809/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathashri Anil D. Agrawal Income Tax Officer-17(1)(1) A-13, Omnitech House Room No. 115, 1St Floor Vs. Kondivita, Marol Midc Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Andheri (E), Mumbai 400059 Mumbai 400020 Pan – Aerpa1868D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Jayant R. BhattFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

been reopened under Section 147 of the Act for the reason that income chargeable to tax has been escaped assessment on account of bogus purchases made by the assessee from suspicious/hawala parties. Notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 01.04.2013 was issued calling for return of income within

Tasc Chemicals P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 7(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1243/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Tasc Chemical - The Income Tax Officer, Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ward – 7(3)(3), C-502, Kailash Esplande, Mumbai Lbs Marg, Ghatkoper, Vs. Mumbai - 400086 Pan: Aaact3152N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishal D. Shah (Ar) Revenue By : Shri V. Justin (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 06/02/2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 21/02/2018

For Appellant: Shri Vishal D. Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Justin (DR)
Section 133Section 139Section 143Section 147Section 148

Subsequently, on the basis of information received from the office of the Director General of Income Tax (Inv.) that the assessee company had made bogus purchases during the previous year, the case was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act to verify the bogus purchases in question. Notice ... were issued. Since, the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of purchase by adducing convincing evidence, the AO made disallowance of bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 39,62,369/-. The assessee challenged the assessment order before the first appellate authority. The Ld. CIT (A) after hearing the assessee

Shankar Jhalani, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1053/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT)
Section 144Section 40

arises. CIT vs. Precious Jewels Corporation 205 Taxman 22 (Raj.)(HC)(Mag.) In course of assessment, AO made certain addition on account of bogus purchases made by the assessee. CIT(A) as also Tribunal deleted the additions made by AO holding that transactions in question were genuine. It was held ... invoking the provisions of section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, assessed its income at Rs. 2,10,63,154 which included bogus purchases to the tune of Rs. 1,48,93,287. CIT(A) held that the books of account of the assessee were fully verifiable, that section

Bipin Umakant Joshi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 30(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed in part

ITA 5794/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am Shri Bipin Umakant Joshi Vs. Ito 30(1)(2) Gayatri Enterprises, Mumbai Block-3, Sitasadan, Haji Bapu Road Malad (East), Mumbai – 400 097 Pan/Gir No.Aacpj1374N Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148

proceedings, the AO was in receipt of information from DGIT(Inv.),Mumbai regarding suspicious parties and the assessee being one of the beneficiaries of bogus purchase and has acquired accommodation entries of bogus purchase bills from five parties namely M/s Bright Corporation Rs.4,02,555/-, M/s Bhavani Trade Link Rs.4 ... total amounting to Rs.9,29,156/-. Therefore, the case was reopened. 5. Based on the above facts, the AO treated Rs.9,29,156/- as bogus purchases and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 6. By the impugned order, CIT(A) restricted the addition to the extent

Ketankumar J Patel, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 2, Mumbai

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

ITA 4401/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Shri Ketankumar J Patel Vs. Asst. Cit Cir 2 Prop . M/S. Unique Chemoplant Mumbai Equipments B-76, Midc, Ambernath (E) Mumbai – 421 506 Pan/Gir No.Abupp7639R Appellant) Respondent) .. Dcit Cir 2 Vs. Shri Ketankumar J Patel Kalyan Prop . M/S. Unique Chemoplant Equipments B-76, Midc, Ambernath (E) Mumbai – 421 506 Pan/Gir No. Abupp7639R Appellant) .. Respondent)

For Appellant: - a) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the A.O. to make adhoc addition of 20
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234C

genuine purchase of materials, which were used in the fabrication of equipment's supplied to the customers of appellant and treating the same as Bogus Purchases, on the basis of inference and assumptions and the same is not based on any adverse evidence or detection of accounting entries ... assessee had made purchases are involved in providing hawala entries. The AO made an addition of Rs.1,46,66,445/- on account of bogus purchases as the assessee failed to discharge its primary onus of producing the respective parties and proving the genuineness of the purchase transaction. .The AO added

Sanjay H. Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-13(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result the ground No

ITA 5063/MUM/2017[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Accoutant Member & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

appeals the assessee has raised identical grounds of appeal except variation of figure of additions of 25% of bogus purchases and 1% commission on such purchases. All appeals were heard together and are decided by consolidated order for the sake of ITA No.5063/Mum/2017 to 5065/Mum/2017 Shri Sanjay H Shah convenience ... opened u/s 147 on account of information received by the Sales Tax Department, State of Maharashtra that certain persons have provided entries of bogus purchase bills to tax payers. The name of the assessee also appeared in the list of beneficiary who have obtained bogus bills. Thus the assessing officer

ACIT - 17(3), Mumbai vs. Vijay N. Mehta, Mumbai

ITA 2194/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am The Asst. Commissioner Of Shri Vijay N Mehta 13, 1St Floor, 338, Narshi Income Tax-17(3), Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, R.No. 137, Natha Street, Masjid Bunder M.K Rd., Mumbai-400 020 (W), Mumbai-400 009 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aadpm8512G Shri Vijay N Mehta The Asst. Commissioner Of 13, 1St Floor, 338, Narshi Income Tax-17(3), Vs. Natha Street, Masjid Bunder Aayakar Bhavan, R.No. 137, (W), Mumbai-400 009 M.K Rd., Mumbai-400 020 Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Neha Paranjape, ARFor Respondent: Saurabhkumar Rai, DR
Section 143(3)Section 69C

only common issue in these cross appeals is as regards to the order of CIT(A) restricting the addition of bogus purchase at 3.41 percent of GP rate of the bogus purchases of ₹ 2,70,84,563/-. The assessee has challenged the application of profit rate at 3.41 per cent ... alleged bogus purchases and Revenue has challenged the estimation of profit rate at the rate of 3.41 per cent. For this Revenue has raised following ground: - “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to restrict