“bogus purchases”

DCIT 5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Karp Impex Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6761, 6760 & 6759/Mum/2016 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08, 2009-10 & 2010-11)

facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in considering the GP @ 3% on alleged bogus purchase instead of adding 9% as was done by the AO. 2. The appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) be set aside ... order of AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) after considering the case of @ 3% of the bogus purchases. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), both i.e. revenue as well as assessee filed the respective appeals before us as detailed above. However

DCIT 4 (2)(2), Mumbai vs. Kaishar Interiors Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly, we uphold the same. Resultantly, these grounds raised by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2226/Mum/2016, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

passed on 29.12.11, Later on, information was received by the AO from DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai related to bogus purchase entries received from the Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra. The AO had information that the parties from whom the assessee had made purchases were bogus and they are engaged in the business ... carried out investigations and after seeking reply from the assessee, disallowed the claim of purchase amounting to Rs. 49,93,566/- as bogus purchases and added the same to the total income of the assessee vide order dated 25.03.15 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s

DCIT 13(1)(2), Mumbai vs. United Asphalters P. Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-13(1)(2), M/S United Asphalters Pvt. 02Nd Floor, Room No.225, Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 3-A/6, Majitha Nagar, Vs. M.K. Road, S.V. Road, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400067 (राज"व /Revenue) (""यथ" /Respondent) Pan. No.Aaacu4547K

Tribunal affirmed the stand of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal). However, if the profit at the rate of 12.50% of the bogus purchases is affirmed then there is no question of minus the GP already declared by the assessee, therefore, the necessary correction is made and the para

DCIT Cen Cir 3, Mumbai vs. Swan Energy Ltd, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6662 & 3870/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2010-11) Dcit Cen Cir 3 M/S Swan Energy Ltd. Room No. 905, Pratistha Formerly Known As Swan Mills Ltd, 2Nd Bhavan, Marines Lines, बिधम/ Mumbai-400020. Floor, Feltham House, Vs. Ballard Estate, J.N. Herdia Marg, Mumbai- 400001. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcs7890Q & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5778 & 2924/Mum/2014 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2011-12 & 2010-11) M/S Swan Energy Ltd. Acit Rg 7(2) Formerly Known As Swan Room No. 626, M. K. बिधम/ Mills Ltd, 2Nd Floor, Feltham Road, Churchgate, Vs. House, Ballard Estate, J.N. Mumbai-400020. Herdia Marg, Mumbai- 400001. अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. J. P. Bairagazd प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Ms. Abha Kala Chanda सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 27/09/2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 06/12/2017 Date Of Pronouncement M/S Swan Energy Ltd..

erred on the fact and in law in restricting the disallowance of Rs. 3.1 cr. made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchase to 6.5% of such purchase without appreciating that the purchase made by the assessee was unproved and bogus. 4. Whether on facts and circumstances ... erred on the fact and in law in restricting the disallowance of Rs. 3.1 cr. made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchase to 6.5% of such purchase without appreciating that the purchase made by the assessee was unproved and bogus. 11. We have heard counsels for both

Siddharth Structurals, Mumbai vs. ITO 29(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am M/S. Siddharth Structurals Vs. Ito 29(3)(4),Mumbai A/1801, 18Th Floor Park Royal Building M.M. Malaviya Road Mulund (W), Mumbai – 400 080 Pan/Gir No.Abkfs5656B Appellant) Respondent) ..

learned CIT(A)-40, Mumbai has erred in upholding the ad hoc addition of Rs. 29,21,470 / - being 12,5% of alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 2,33,71,789/-, merely on surmises and conjectures. 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. In this case ... returned, would meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs.29,21,470/- being 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 2,33,71,789/- is justified. 5. I have considered rival contentions and gone through the orders of the authorities below

Dilip B Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5560/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Shri Dilip B. Shah Ito-14(1)(1), बनाम/ 2Nd Floor, Earnest House, 5/20 A, Gita Building, Gamdevi, Vs. Grant Road, Mumbai-400 002 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aapps 9105 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Ruchi M. Rathod ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ram Tiwari

assessment year (A.Y.) 2009-10. 2. The issue raised is that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in sustaining disallowance of 12.5 % of bogus purchase. 2 Shri Dilip B. Shah vs. ITO 3. The grounds of appeal read as under: 1. Learned Assessing Officer erred in adding peak purchases ... information was that the sales tax department has exercised due diligence which revealed that the assessee is involved in taking accommodation entries of bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.1,93,20,247/- from 11 parties as under :- Hawala PAN Hawala Dealer Name Amount in Rs. AALCS2561E Sunico traders

Srk Gems and Gifts Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-5(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, all the threes appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia

entries is through the payment of brokerage. But it has failed to produce the details of such brokerage. In the circumstances, 2% of such bogus purchases was added to the total income of the assessee as unexplained expenditure for all the above 3 years.” 4. I have heard the rival ... entire sales is not legally and factually tenable. The element of inflation in purchases can be possible only in respect of such bogus purchases. The estimation and application of uniform G.P @ 4.5% on the entire sales of the assessee is not reasonable and not in consonance with the facts

Noorjahan Niyaz Ahmed Khan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-26(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia

name and style of Riyaz Engineering Works. During the year the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) found that assessee had made bogus purchases from following parties: Sr. Name of the party Amount of No. Purchase (Rs) 1. Siddhivinayak Steel 6,50,059/- 2. Chanchal Tube Corporation ... above parties for verification. There was no compliance of notice under section 133(6). Therefore, the AO has made the addition on account of bogus purchases of Rs.51,37,070/-. 4. Matter carried to the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the claim of the assessee

Reliance Realty, Ulhasnagar vs. Jt CIT RG 2, Kalyan

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

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu: A.Y : 2011-12

treated the purchases as non-genuine and bogus. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.10,42,681/- was added to the total income on account of bogus purchases. The said addition has been sustained by the CIT(A), against which assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Before

Heena Gems, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 7564/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) M/S Heena Gems, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 2405, Panchratna, M.P.Marg, Income Tax – 19(1), Mumbai Opera House, Mumbai - 400004 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafh4046H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Naveen Kumar Mishra (Ar) राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri T.A. Khan (Dr) सुनर्ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/09/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 22/11/2016 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Mumbai, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2007-08, Whereby The Ld. Cit (A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Assessment Order Passed U/S 143 (3) Read With Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Jewellery, Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year Under Consideration Declaring The Total Income Of Rs. 86,43,630/-. The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143 (3) Of The Act. Subsequently, A Search & Seizure Action Was Conducted In The Case Of Rajendra Jain Group/Sanjay Choudhary Group/Dharmichand Jain Group On 30/10/2013 By The Director General Of Income Tax (Inv.), Mumbai. During The 2 Assessment Year: 2007-08

notice was issued as to why the books of accounts should not be rejected u/s 145 (3) of the Act and the amount of bogus purchases should not be added to the income. In response thereof the assessee filed the chart giving particulars of purchases made from the concerned along ... Income tax Act and thereafter treating the total purchases made from the above 3 parties aggregating to Rs. 63,57,880/- as bogus purchases. 4. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in confirming the addition of aggregate purchases

ITO 19(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bhavana Steel, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2011-

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Ito – 19(1)(2), M/S Bhavana Steel, Room No. 204, Sabusidique Building, Matru Mandir, 1St Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai - 400007 Vs. Mumbai – 400004 Pan: Aaefb9418R (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Sashank Dundu (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 09/11/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2017

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in restricting the addition made on account of bogus purchase @ 12.5% to 6.5%.” 5. Before us, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) relying on the assessment order submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) has wrongly restricted ... addition to 6.5%. The Ld. DR further submitted that the AO has rightly made addition of 12.5% of the total amount of bogus purchases in accordance with the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Gujarat 3 Assessment Year: 2011-12 High Court in Simit P. Sheth

Sanjay Kailash Gupta, Kalyan vs. ITO WD 3(4), Kalyan

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2009-2010

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Sanjay Kailash Gupta, The Income Tax Officer, 707, A7, Kingstone Yogidham, Ward 3(4), Kalyan Murbad Road, Shop No. 1,2,3, Rani Mansion, Kasturigram Society, Vs. Kalyan (West) Khadakpada, Kalyan (West) Pan: Adtpg0574H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 09/11/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2017

case and in law, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in arriving at a disallowance by adopting a Gross Profit ratio of 12.50% on alleged bogus purchases, which is without any basis and justification and thereby confirming the addition of Rs. 628,765/-. The said percentage is very high ... passed by the Ld. CIT (A) submitted that the Ld. CIT (A) has rightly restricted the addition to 12.5% of the total amount of bogus purchases made by the assessee during the year relevant to the 4 Assessment Year: 2009-10 assessment year under consideration. The Ld. DR further pointed

Omkar Speciality Chemicals Ltd, Thane vs. ACIT 10(3)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2388/Mum/2017, (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

said return was processed u/s 143(3). Subsequently, the AO received information that the assessee indulged in the acceptance of bogus purchase from hawala entries and after recording reasons for reopening, the case was reopened for the year under consideration. Since it was found that assessee had made bogus purchases ... connected and inter related and relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made by AO on account of bogus purchase by the assessee, therefore we thought it fit to dispose of the same thorough this common order. 4 I.T.A. No. 2388/Mum/2017 Omkar Speciality Chemicals

Malay Sanghavi, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita No. 5682/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Shri Malay N. Sanghvi, I.T.O-8(3)(2) बिधम/ M-1, Kalpita Enclave Co-Op. Aayakar Bhavan, Housing Society, Sahar Road, Churchgage, Vs. Andheri (East) Mumbai- 20 Mumbai-400 069 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan No. Aaahe1478G (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

opportunity to the Appellant as required u/s 251(2). 2. The Learned CIT (A) is erred in considering the gross profit on so called "Bogus Purchase" @ 24.26% instead of the 9.26% as adopted by Appellant. The Learned CIT(A) is grossly erred in disallowing additional 15% as saving towards ... assessment proceedings it was gathered by the A.O that as per information received from the sales tax authorities, the assessee had booked bogus purchases and obtained P a g e | 13 ITA Nos. 151,5682,6265,6463/Mum/2012,2013,2017 Shri Malay N. Shanghvi Vs. ITO accommodation bills aggregating to Rs.23

ITO 19(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Naitik Gems, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhito -19(2)(4), M/S Naitik Gems Room No. 217, Matru Mandir, 1304, Prasad Chambers, Vs. Mumbai-400007. Opera House, Mumbai-400004. Pan: Aaafn5200F (Appellant) (Respondent)

admitted that all the concerns/firms/companies were managed by his family members. The assessee was one of the beneficiaries of such accommodation entries of bogus purchases. The assessee has availed such entry only to suppress the trade profit and to reduce the tax liability. The ld. DR for the Revenue prayed ... from the banking channels. In this situation, the issue would boil down to finding out what is the correct element of profit embedded in bogus purchases which the appellant would have made from some unknown entity. In this regard, it is apt to refer to certain decisions dealing the similar

DCIT - 9(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Airpac Filters & Systems Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, cross appeals filed by the revenue and the assessee for assessment years 2009-10 and appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11 are dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Dcit – 9(1)(1), M/S Airpac Filters & Systems - Room No. 260A, 2Nd Floor, Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, 21, Papa Industrial Estate, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. 40, Suren Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai - 400093

basis of information received from the sales Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11 tax department Maharashtra to the effect that the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills from three Hawala dealers namely Anupam Metal, Anmol Ferromet Pvt.Ltd. and Sandeep Enterprises amounting to Rs. 38,67,926/-, the assessee’s case ... genuineness of the transaction of purchases in question, despite several reminders issued to the assessee, the AO made addition of the entire amount of bogus purchases to the income of the assessee. 2. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the first appellant authority. The Learned

Samkit Diamonds Exporters, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(3), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee as well of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4133/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) बिाम/ Samkit Diamonds Exporters Acit 19(3) 111 Prasad Chambers, Tata Mumbai Road No.2, Opera House, V. Mumbai 400004 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aakfs5302F (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

read as under:- “ The Honourable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 53,54,962/- @ 3% of alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 17,84,98,737/- against addition of Rs. 1,42,79,899/- @ 8% of the said alleged bogus purchase made ... considering the explanations, affidavit, confirmations and other relevant documents submitted during assessment and appeal proceedings in support of being genuineness of the alleged bogus purchases without understanding the merits and value of the said documents. The Appellant craves leave to submit at the time of hearing such further facts, information