← 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

Shri. Hariram S. Bishnoi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward 15(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2091/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. 2091/Mum/2016 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Hariram S. Bishnoi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer – 107/111, 1St Floor, Ward 15(2) (4), 3Rd Kumbharwada Lane, Mumbai - 400004 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afgpb8257B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satish R. Mody (Ar) राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri V. Jenardhanan (Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Satish R. Mody (AR)For Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhanan (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 142(2)Section 143(3)

after hearing the assessee partly allowed the appeal and restricted the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases made by the AO. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal against the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A):- 1. “The Learned Commissioner of Income ... relying on the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the Ld.CIT (A) has rightly sustained the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases made by the assessee during the relevant year. Since, the assessee has failed to prove genuineness of the transaction, there is no reason to interfere

DCIT 13(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rizvi Land Developments P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5840/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2009-10 The Dcit-13(3)(1), M/S Rizvi Land Developments Pvt. Room No. 229, 2Nd Floor, Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Rizvi House, Hill Road, Mumbai - 400020 Vs. Bandra (West), Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Aaacr4166P (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 177/Mum/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Rizvi Land Developments The Dcit-13(3)(1), Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 229, 2Nd Floor, Rizvi House (1St Floor), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Hill Road, Bandra (West), Vs. Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400050 Pan: Aaacr4166P (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Purushottam Kumar (Sr. Dr) Assessee By : Shri M. Subramanian (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 09/10/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2017

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian (AR)For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar (Sr. DR)
Section 133Section 143Section 147

Subsequently, on the basis of information received from the Sales Tax Department Maharashtra, through Directorate General of Income Tax (Inv.), Mumbai regarding bogus purchases made by various companies including the present assessee, the assessment was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act. The assessee was one of the companies, which ... 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. 1,04,30,084/- from the bogus entities i.e. Vardhman International and Maharaja Impex. 3. The assessee objected

DCIT 14(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Re Infra P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 4586/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal (Vp) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Re Infra. Private Limited, – Tax – 14 (3) (1), Office No. 3, Gangatara, Room No. 455, 4Th Floor, 73 Pestom Sagar Road No. 2, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Chembur, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai - 400089 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aadcr7593R (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Purushottam Kumar (Sr. Dr) Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 11/10/2017 Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2017

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah (AR)For Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar (Sr. DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

under consideration declaring total income of Rs. 4,36,43,210/-. Subsequently, on the basis of information received from the Sales Tax Department regarding bogus purchases made by various companies including the present assessee, the assessment was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act. The 2 Assessment Year ... assessee was one of the 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. 3,70,18,708/- from four bogus entities namely; Hiten

Associate Plantations Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-8(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 4429/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 133A

relates to A.Y. 2007-08. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in enhancing the addition of bogus purchases to 100%. 2. I heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee is engaged in the business of trading in steel. The Revenue carried ... survey operation u/s. 133A of the Act and it was noticed that the assessee has made bogus purchases from Siddhivinayak Steel to the tune of ` 109.60 lakhs. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee contended that the purchases made from Siddhivinayak Steel are genuine. In support of the same

Dharmesh Bhagat, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-25(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4320/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 133(6)Section 148

relates to A.Y. 2009- 10. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in partially confirming the addition relating to bogus purchases. 2. I heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee is engaged in the business of trading in gift articles under trade name ... Bholanath Poly Fab (P) Ltd. (ITA No. 63 of 2012 dated 23.10.2012). Accordingly the Assessing Officer estimated the profit at 25% of bogus purchases and accordingly added a sum of ` 13.70 lakhs to the total income returned by the assessee. 3. In the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT(A) reduced

Asst CIT 32(3), Mumbai vs. Sahakar Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result this ground of appeal raised by

ITA 4530/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhassistant Commissioner Of M/S Sahakar Enterprises , 201, Ashirwad, 10Th Road , Income-Tax -32(3) Mumbai, Room No.,108, 1St Floor, Building Daulat Nagar, Borivali (E), Vs. No.C-11, Pratyaskshkar Bhavan, Mumbai Bandra Kurla Complex , Pan:Abkfs1799M Bandra(E) Mumbai-400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By – Anuj Kishandwala-Ar Revenue Represented By-- Sh. V. Justine –Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.10.2017 Date Of Order: 18.10.2017 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Revenue Under Section 253 Of Income Tax Act Is Directed

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)Section 69

unexplained expenditure to Rs. 25,91,829/- @ 12.5% of Rs.2,15,98,572/- under section 69 of the Income tax Act on account of bogus purchases as against the addition of Rs.2,15,98,572/- made by the AO without appreciating that the assessee has not produced any cogent evidence ... March 2014. The assessing officer while passing assessment order made the additions of Rs.2,15,98,572/- on account of bogus purchases and Rs. 12,49,701/- on account of difference in the provisions of Transfer of Development Right (TDR) from Premleela Investment. On appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) the additions

ACIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Amar Construction Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 1156/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2010-11 Office Of The Acit 25(2), M/S. Amar Construction R. No.508, C-10, Corporation, 5Th Floor, 6, Chunawala Building, Vs. Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Dixit Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vile Parle (E), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 057 Mumbai – 400 051 Pan: Aaefa 1093P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Shashi S. Varma, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Saurabh Deshpande, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.10.2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shashi S. Varma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande, D.R
Section 133(6)

engaged in business of civil construction work. During the year the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as the AO) found that assessee had made bogus purchases from following party: 2 M/s. Amar Construction Corporation Sr. Name of the party Amount of No. Purchase (Rs) 1. Deepali Enterprises Rs.48 ... 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.48,40,571/-. 4. Matter carried to the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the claim by observing

ITO 6(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Indo Tubes Tech P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 6364/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhito 6 (3)(2), M/S Indo Tube Tech Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor, C/O. Mr. J.D. Sanghavi & Co. (C.A), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. 409, Jolly Bhavan No.2, 7, Mumbai-400020. New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aabci6396K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv M. ShahFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin (Sr. DR)
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 253Section 254(1)

case and in the law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 83,78,783/- on account of Bogus purchases without appreciating the fact that the assessee could not bring any evidence on record to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer to show that ... appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has challenged he re-opening of the assessment as well as addition on account of bogus purchases. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the re-opening, however, the addition of Rs. 83,78,783/- was deleted. Aggrieved by the order

Shree Chemtech Marketing P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 895/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra KarkhanisFor Respondent: Ms. Hemalatha
Section 143(3)Section 147

purchases. On the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing of Income Tax Department, Mumbai, it was found that the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills total amounting to Rs.1,50,91,291/- from M/s Ramex Trade Impex Pvt. Ltd. which were settled to be hawala operators ... Rs.26,04,077/-, being 12.5% of the total non-genuine purchases of Rs.2,08,32,619/-. Accordingly, Rs. 26,04,077/-, was treated as bogus purchases and added to the returned income of the assessee. 5. Upon the assessee’s appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the issue raised regarding

Ninad Shivanand Kully, Thane vs. ITO Ward - 3(1) Thane, Thane

In the result, appeal is allowed in part

ITA 3972/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am Shri Ninad Shivanand Kully, Vs. Ito Ward – 3 (1), Thane B/4/8, Himdhara Chs Ltd., Ashar It Park 6Th Floor, Road No.16-Z Shree Nagar Thane (W) Brodma, Nehru Nagar Thane – 400604 Wagale Estate Thane (W), Thane Pan/Gir No.Acbpk7298P Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act. 2. In this appeal, assessee is aggrieved for upholding addition on account of bogus purchases. 3. Nobody appeared on behalf of assessee inspite of service of notice nor any adjournment petition was filed, therefore, Bench decided to dispose the appeal

Parasingh B. Parmar, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed in part

ITA 3966/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am

Section 143(3)

both the years, assessee is aggrieved for upholding addition by estimating profit of 5% on the alleged bogus purchases. 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. 4. On the basis of information from Sales Tax Department, AO found that assessee has made some purchases from hawala dealers ... learned AR that only on the basis of information from Sales Tax Department, the AO has jumped to the conclusion that assessee has made bogus purchases. As per learned AR, assessee has also asked for cross examination but the same was not provided. Our attention was also invited to para

Rameshchandra M Tripathi, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1225/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am)

Section 40Section 41(1)

assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in confirming the addition relating to income from house property, bogus purchases, disallowance u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act, addition u/s. 41(1), disallowance relating to depreciation and disallowance of deduction claimed under Chapter VI-A. 2 Shri

Shree Dilipkumar B Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 29(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1027/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2017AY 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 bogus purchases and also in partially confirming the addition relating to personal expenses. 2. I heard the parties and perused the record. The Assessing Officer reopened ... other evidences to substantiate the genuineness of the purchases. Accordingly, the Assessing 2 Shri Dilipkumar B. Jain Officer disallowed 20% of the alleged bogus purchases and the same was confirmed by the learned CIT(A). 3. Learned AR submitted that the assessee is dealing in chemical products and gross profit

Asst CIT 9(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Citybuild Arcade P.Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 7238/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Shri V.JustinFor Respondent: Shri Jayesh Dodia

appeal by the Revenue, wherein the Revenue is aggrieved by the order dated 30.09.2016 wherein the learned CIT(A) has sustained 12.5% disallowance for bogus purchases as against 100% disallowance done by the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2009-2010. 2. The Assessing Officer in this case has made ... addition on account of bogus purchase amounting to Rs.92,93,949. Upon assessee’s appeal, learned CIT(A) has noted that the consumption and sales have not been doubted. Accordingly, placing reliance upon several case laws and upon the facts of the case, he sustained 12.5% disallowance

ACIT Cir 7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Gauges Bourdon India P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross objections by the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 7206/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 7206 To 7208/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12) Acit, Circle 7(1)-1, M/S. Gauges Bourdon India Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 130, 1St Floor, 194-195, Gopi Tank Road, बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mahim, Mumbai-400 016 Vs. Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacg 1986 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : ""या"ेपक सं /C.O. Nos. 188 To 190/Mum/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita Nos. 7206 To 7208/Mum/2016) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12) M/S. Gauges Bourdon India Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Circle 7(1)-1, Room No. 130, 1St Floor, 194-195, Gopi Tank Road, बनाम/ Mahim, Mumbai-400 016 Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacg 1986 A (Cross Objector) : (Assessee) Revenue By : Shri V. Justin : Dr. Vinay D. Mulye Assessee By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 17.08.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 16.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement

For Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 133(6)Section 147

common issue raised in Revenue’s appeal is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining an addition of 12.5% of the bogus purchases, as against 100% added by the assessing officer. 3. The common ground raised by the assessee in the cross objection is that ... erred in sustaining even 12.5% of bogus purchase as addition. 4. In these cases, the assessing officer has made 100% disallowance of bogus purchases as under: A.Y. 2009-10 Sr. No. Name of the party Amount 1 Atlas Enterprises 788 2 Rajratan Metal Industries 45556415 3 Ronak Industries 8904167 Total

Sumit M. Malhotra, Kalyan vs. ITO 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, these appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 6697/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 6697 & 6698/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Mr. Sumit M. Malhotra Income-Tax Officer 3(4), Rani Mansion, 2Nd Floor, C/O. M/S. S. M. Steel Traders बनाम/ 702, “A” Wing, Archies Apartment, Murbad Road, Vs. Oak Baug, Near Railway Station, Kalyan (W) – 421 301 Kalyan (W) – 421 301 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaypm 8541 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Justin

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin
Section 133(6)Section 148

that the reopening was not justified. 4. Second issue raised is that ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining disallowance of 12.5 % percent of bogus purchase. 5. Brief facts of the case are as under: Since facts are similar we are considering facts again figures from assessment year ... order, the assessee appealed before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the action of the assessing officer in making addition of 12.5% of the bogus purchase. The ld. CIT(A) held as under: 8. I have carefully considered the appellant's submissions, observations of the AO in the assessment order

DCIT RG 9(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ana Designs P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, these appeals filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 6638/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Shri V.JustinFor Respondent: --- None ---

appeal by the Revenue, wherein the Revenue is aggrieved that the learned CIT(A) has sustained only 12.5% disallowance on account of bogus purchases. 2. The Assessing Officer in these cases has made 100% addition on account of bogus purchase amounting to Rs.49,78,341. Upon assessee’s appeal, learned ... been doubted. Accordingly placing reliance upon several case laws and upon the facts of the case, he sustained 12.5% disallowance out of the bogus purchase. 3. Against the above order, Revenue is in appeal before the ITAT. 2 ITA No.6638/Mum/2016. M/s.ANA Designs Private Limited. 4. We have heard the learned

Shishikala R. Bohra, Ambernath vs. DCIT Cir 2, Kalyan

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

ITA 3139/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm

For Appellant: Shri S.M.MakhijaFor Respondent: Shri V.Justin

These are appeals by the assessee where the assessee is aggrieved that the learned CIT(A) has sustained 100% disallowance on account of bogus purchases, as under:- Asst.Year 2010-2011 Rs.41,13,540 Asst.Year 2011-2012 Rs.24,27,305 2. The Assessing Officer in these cases has made 100% addition ... account of bogus purchase. Upon assessee’s appeal, learned CIT(A) confirmed the same. 2 ITA Nos.3139 & 3140/Mum/2016. Shri Shashikala R. Bohra. 3. Against the above order, assessee is in appeal before the ITAT. 4. We have heard both the Counsel and perused the records. The learned Departmental Representative relied

Priority Jewels P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(3)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3902/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm M/S Priority Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Assistant Cit-10(3)(2), बिधम/ Plot No. 121, Street No. 15/18, Aayakar Bhavan Midc, Marol, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400020 Vs. Mumbai-400 093. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaecp4118 (अऩीराथी /Applicant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Respondent: Shri V. Jenardhanan, D.R
Section 143(3)

simply relied on the report given by the investigation wing, then no addition made on the said count in respect of the bogus purchase could be sustained in the hands of the assessee. It was further averred by the ld. A.R that the A.O without rejecting the books of account ... hidden a fact that making of payments vide cheques duly forms part of the well knit chain of events involved in making of bogus purchases also. We further find that the P a g e | 9 ITA No. 3902/Mum/2017 AY: 2012-13 M/s Priority Jewels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT assessee

ACIT 19(2), Mumbai vs. Manek Gems & Art International, Mumbai

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

ITA 230/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri. Raj A. KapadiaFor Respondent: Shri. V. Jenardhanan, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

aforementioned entities, viz. (i) Prime Star; (ii) Rajan Diamonds; (iii) Mayur Exports; and (iv) Parvati Exports, therefore, the A.O had characterised the same as bogus purchase transactions. It was further observed by the CIT(A) that the A.O had after relying on the statements recorded under oath of the persons ... purchases made by the assessee from the open/grey market. 6. The CIT(A) after concluding that the addition in respect of the aforesaid bogus purchase transactions was liable to be restricted only as regards the profit element that would be involved in making of the purchases of the goods under