“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

ACIT - 19(3), Mumbai vs. Sujan Singh S. Deora, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6059/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 were completed u/s. 143(3) and 143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act holding that the assessee availed bogus purchase entries from various parties referred to in Page No.2 of the Assessment Order. In the course of assessment proceedings assessee was required to prove ... concluded that only the profit element embedded in the purchases to be brought to tax and restricted the addition/disallowance to 15% of the bogus purchases for these two assessment years. Assessee preferred appeals in sustaining the addition/disallowance to 15% and the Revenue is in appeal in granting ITA NO.6058

ACIT - 19(3), Mumbai vs. Sujan Singh S. Deora, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 6058/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

Pristine Engineering Services, Mumbai vs. DCIT - 20(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5879/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Pristine Engineering Acit, Ward 20(2)/Cit Services, City 20, B-34, Nand Bhuvan Piramal Chambers, Industrial Estate, Vs. Lalbaug, Mahakali Caves Road, Mumbai Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 093 Pan: Aaafp1771B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Agrawal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar, D.R

Section 133(6)

purchased some goods and resold the same. 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. Ramesh Steel Industries 31,832/- 2. Shubham Enterprises ... 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.8,90,917/-/-. 4. Matter carried to the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the claim by observing

Sujansingh Deora, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5716/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

Sujansingh Deora, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5715/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

Sujansingh Deora, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5714/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

Rajendra Madhani, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 5528/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.5528/Mum/2016 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11)

For Appellant: None

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

parties. In the meantime, the AO received the information from the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra that the assessee has made bogus purchases from 5 parties as mentioned in para 4.2 of the assessment order to whom the AO issued notices u/s 133(6) on the addresses given ... No.5528/Mum/2016 consumption of material during manufacturing process etc. However, the AO was not satisfied with the reply of the assessee. He disallowed the entire bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.74,70,395/- by framing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act vide assessment order dated

ITO 31(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Gajanan Builders, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue and the cross-objections

ITA 3570/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am The Income Tax Officer- Gajanan Builders 31(1)(5), Mumbai 20, Patel Industrial Estate, Office Of The I.T.O.-31(1)(5), Singh Compound, Opp. Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, C-11, Veera Dalvai Indl. Esate, Vs. Room No. 70, Bandrakurla Navpada Road, Oshiwara, Complex, Bandra(E), Mumbai- Jogeshwari (W), Mumbai- 400 050 102 Appellant .. Respondent Pan No.Aagfg1193G

For Appellant: Vimal Punmiya, ARFor Respondent: M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

cases of the assessee, despite 3 CO No. 131/Mum/2017 AY 10-11 Gajanan Builders agreeing to the fact that the assessee had indulged in bogus purchases and bogus labour expenses although the AO had only treated purchases of Rs. 1.89 crores from 15 parties and the not the entire purchases ... this ground: “On the facts and circumstances of the law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in making addition of ` 18,26,658/- on alleged bogus purchases by applying theory of peak credit.” 4. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee firm is engaged in building and development of real estate

Ali Ispat P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 14(1)(1)

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

ITA 2699/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm M/S. Ali Ispat Ltd., Vs. Dcit 14(1)(1), Mumbai Shop No.7, Ibrahim Chunawala Compound, Lbs Marg, Opp. Kurla Bus Depot Kurla (W), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan/Gir No.Aaeca7192A Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act. 2. In this appeal, assessee is aggrieved for upholding the addition @12.5% by CIT(A) in respect of bogus purchases. 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. 4. The brief facts are that information was received from the Investigation regarding the involvement ... assessee in obtaining accommodation entries in the nature of bogus purchases from the following parties: 2 M/s. Ali Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Party Amount A) M/s. Siddhivanayak Steel Rs. 22,58,701 B) M/s. Chanchal Tube Corporation Rs. 26,61,795 C) M/s. Suraj Tube Corporation

DCIT Cent. Cir. -5(3) (Erstwhile DCIT Cent. Cir. -36), Mumbai vs. Modern Road Makers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5126/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Modern Road Makers Pvt. Acit, Central Circle-5(3), Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Irb Complex, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Chandivali Farm, Chandivali Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Vs. Village, Andheri (East), (Formerly Assessed With Acit Mumbai-400072 Cc-36, Mumbai.) Pan: Aaacm3816F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Modern Road Makers Pvt. Acit, Central Circle-5(3), Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Irb Complex, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Chandivali Farm, Chandivali Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Vs. Village, Andheri (East), ( Formerly Assessed With Acit Mumbai-400072 Cc-36, Mumbai.) Pan: Aaacm3816F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S Modern Road Makers Pvt. Acit, Central Circle-5(3), Ltd. 3Rd Floor, Irb Complex, Air India Building, 19Th Floor, Chandivali Farm, Chandivali Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Vs. Village, Andheri (East), ( Formerly Assessed With Acit Mumbai-400072 Cc-36, Mumbai.) Pan: Aaacm3816F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 69C

officer while framing assessment made the addition of M/s Modern Road Makers Pvt. Ltd. Rs.1,27,63,427/- under section 69C on account of bogus purchases and addition of Rs.2,55,269/-on account of commission expenses on the said bogus purchases. On appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) the validity ... erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 7,62,206/ - made by the AO to the income of the Appellant on account of bogus purchases in respect of purchases from M/s. Asian Steel who in turn purchased these goods from M/s. Karma Industries Ltd. and its associate concerns

Modern Road Makers P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 36, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4734/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 254(1)Section 69C

Etesh Prakash Jain (HUF), Bhiwandi vs. ITO, WD-1(1), Kalyan

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

ITA 3021/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Ito Wd 1(1), Vs. Etesh P. Jain Huf It Office, 1St Floor, Mohan M/S. Shree Darshan Pipes, Plaza, Wayale Nagar 331/5, Surya Darshan Kalyan West, Building, Kasar Ali Kalyan Gokul Nagar Bhiwandi – 421 302 Pan/Gir No. Aaahe1478G Appellant) .. Respondent) Etesh P. Jain Huf Vs. Ito Wd 1(1), It Office, 1St Floor, Mohan M/S. Shree Darshan Pipes, 331/5, Surya Darshan Plaza, Wayale Nagar Building, Kasar Ali Kalyan West, Gokul Nagar Kalyan Bhiwandi – 421 302 Pan/Gir No. Aaahe1478G Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue By Ms. Arju Garodia Assessee By Shri A.T.Jain

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

finalised on 20/03/2014, at total income of Rs.71,95,610/- after making an addition of Rs.68,08,698/-, on account of bogus purchases. 3. By the impugned order, CIT(A) restricted the addition to the extent of 12.5% of such purchases after observing as under:- “10. I have carefully considered ... there is always a certain amount of "guess work". There are number of decisions by the various courts, where 25% to 100% disallowance of bogus purchases, have been upheld. So. me of them are listed, here as under; 100% disallowance of bogus / unverifiable purchases was upheld, in following cases

DCIT Cen Cir 4(2) Cen RG 4(2), Mumbai vs. Prateek Vijay Gupta, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed

ITA 3663/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit Cen Cir 4(2) Vs. Shri Prateek Vijay Gupta Cen. Rg. 4, R.No.411, New Harileela House, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, 6Th Floor, Mint Road, Fort, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 001 Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaspg9494L Appellant) .. Respondent) Shri Prateek Vijay Gupta Vs. Acit Rg 12(1) Now Transferred New Harileela House, To Acit Cen Cir 4 (2) 6Th Floor, Mint Road, Fort, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 001 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaspg9494L Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue By Ms. Arju Garodia Assessee By Shri Bhupendra Karkhanis

Section 143(3)Section 69C

whereas the assessing officer made an addition of r 9,37,11,967 on account of bogus purchase which remained unexplained by the assessee during the assessment proceeding as well as during the appellate proceeding." 2. "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case ... addition to 12.5% of Rs. 9,37,11,967 whereas the addition of Rs. 9,37,11,967 was made on account of bogus purchases based on the information received from the Sales Tax department and the purchase party was not even traceable as well. 3. "The appellant craves, leave

ITO 20(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rajesh P. Mehta, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2501/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2501/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. T A Khan

Section 144Section 147Section 148

dispute in this appeal is in narrow compass. The AO received information from office of DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai that the assessee is engaged in bogus purchase activities from hawala operator wherein the assessee is beneficiary of these alleged hawala entries of purchases to the tune of Rs.1 ... assessee but the assessee did not responded to the notices issued by the AO which led to the additions of the entire alleged bogus purchase to the tune of Rs.1,53,98,333/- to the income of the assessee vide best judgment assessment order dated 09-02-2016 passed

Yasika Steels P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011

ITA 844/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Yasika Steels Pvt. Ltd., Shri Juliet Ravichandran, Shop No. 2A, Mahavir Darshan, Ito – 5(3)(4), Khetwadi, Khambata Lane, Mumbai Mumbai – 400004 Vs. Pan: Aaacy2914J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Purushottam Kumar (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing: 11/10/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2017

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar (Sr. DR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

first appeal the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to 12.5% of the total amount of bogus purchases determined by the AO. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The assessee has preferred this appeal against the impugned order passed ... revenue. 6. Before us, the Ld. DR submitted that the Ld.CIT (A) has wrongly restricted the addition to 12.5% of the total bogus purchases made by the assessee during the relevant year. Since, the assessee has failed to prove genuineness of the transaction, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have

Asst CIT 25(3), Mumbai vs. Mukesh K. Desai, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 7357/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 7357/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Asst. Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Mukesh K. Desai, Income Tax-25(3), 9, 2Nd Floor, Madhukunj, Room No. 601, C-10, 6Th Floor, V.S. Khandekar Road, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai - 400057 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpd778D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V. Jenardhanan (Dr) राजस्व की ओर से / Assessee By : None

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhanan (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Subsequently, on the basis of information 2 Assessment Year: 2011-12 received from the Sales Tax Department regarding bogus purchases made by various companies including the present assessee from hawala dealers which used to issue bogus bills, the assessment was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notices ... appeared and furnished the details called for. As per the information, the assessee during the year relevant to the assessment year under consideration made bogus purchases to the tune of Rs. 2,98,82,729/- from seven bogus entities mentioned in the assessment order. 3. Accordingly, AO issued notices

ITO WD 2(2), Kalyan vs. K Manyar, Ulhasnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 6229/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6229/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S K. Manyar, Ward 2(2), Prop. Madhu H. Maniyar (Huf), 2Nd Floor, Mohan Plaza, Bk No. 831, Room No. 1, Wayle Nagar, Khadakpada, Sec. 17, Kalyan (W) - 421301 Ulhasnagar - 421503 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aahhm3368J (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V. Jenardhanan (Dr) राजस्व की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Virag M Shah (Ar)

For Appellant: Shri Virag M Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhanan (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 17

Assessment Year: 2011-12 3. Subsequently, on the basis of information received from the Sales Tax Department regarding bogus purchases made by various companies including the present assessee from hawala entities which used to issue bogus bills without selling any goods, the assessment was re-opened ... assessee was one of the companies, which had made bogus purchases from one of the said entities. As per the information, the assessee company during the year relevant to the assessment year under consideration made bogus purchases to the tune of Rs. 72,15,465/- from such entities, Victor

ACIT - 15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Detection Instrument India Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 6195/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 6195/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) The Acit- 15(1)-2, Vs. M/S Detection Instruments Room No. 483-A, 4Th Floor, India Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, El/36, Electronics Zone, Mumbai - 400020 Ttc Industrial Area, Midc, Mahape, Navi Mumbai - 400710 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacd1659F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V. Jenardhanan (Dr) राजस्व की ओर से / Assessee By : Rakesh Joshi (Ar) सुनर्ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/08/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2017

For Appellant: Rakesh Joshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhanan (DR)

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Assessment Year: 2011-12 Subsequently, on the basis of information received from the Sales Tax Department regarding bogus purchases made by various companies including the present assessee from hawala entities which used to issue bogus bills, the assessment was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act. The assessee ... companies, which had made bogus purchases from the said entities. As per the information, the assessee company during the year relevant to the assessment year under consideration made bogus purchases to the tune of Rs. 67,43,250/- from three bogus entities namely; Kawality Enterprise, Sunny International and MS Giriraj

Samrat Metal Traders P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 5(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3527/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3527/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10)

For Appellant: Sh M S MathuriaFor Respondent: Shri. T A Khan,DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

company engaged in business of trading of metal. The AO received information from office of DGIT(Inv.), Mumbai that the assessee is engaged in bogus purchase activities from hawala operator wherein the assessee is beneficiary of alleged hawala entries of purchases to the tune of Rs.7 ... assessee did not responded to the notices and show cause issued by the AO which led to the additions of the entire alleged bogus purchase to the tune of Rs. Rs.7,47,73,908/-. to the income of the assessee vide best judgment assessment order dated 08-01-2014 passed

Soman Sun Citi, Kalyan vs. Jt. CIT Range - 2, Kalyan

ITA 2960/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2960/Mum/2016 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri. Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 69C

case, which is contrary to law and is against the principles of natural justice. I.T.A. No. 2960/Mum/2016 2. Additions u/s. 69C for disallowing alleged bogus purchases aggregating Rs. 44,78,415/- : a. The Ld. CIT (A) and the Ld. AO have erred in facts and in law while disallowing alleged ... bogus purchases aggregating to Rs. 44,78,415/- u/s. 69C. b. The Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO have erred in invoking the provisions of sec. 69C which is triggered only in the case where the source of expenditure is not explained and not in respect of authenticity