← All Phrases

“bogus purchases”

DisallowancesSection 69CSection 69C9,532 judgments

The decision most relied on for bogus purchases is CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd. (355 ITR 290), cited in 712 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on 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.

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.

CIT v. Simit P. Seth
38 Taxmann.com 385 · 2013 · High Court
278
citing judgments

When an assessee obtains accommodation bills for purchases but the corresponding sales are genuine, the addition to income is limited to the gross profit margin embedded in such purchases. This principle acknowledges that the underlying sales were real, but profit was suppressed through bogus invoices.

CIT v. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd.
355 ITR 498 · 2013 · High Court
252
citing judgments

In cases of alleged bogus or hawala purchases where the existence of transactions is not entirely denied, only the profit element embedded in such purchases, and not the entire purchase price, can be added to the assessee's income. The focus is on determining a reasonable profit percentage for such additions.

Judgments citing bogus purchases

ITO WD 2(2), Mumbai vs. Sanjay Satyanarayan Agrawal, Thane

ITA 3854/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, J.M. & Shri Rajesh Kumar, A.M

For Appellant: - Shri Purushottam Kumar (Sr. AR)For Respondent: - Shri Dr. K. Shivaram Rahul Hakani
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

circumstances of the case, and in law, the Hon’ble CIT(A) erred in not confirming addition of Rs.28,93,231/- on account of bogus purchases which the assessee had admitted before the Assessing Officer. 2.1 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... shown from above parties his own unnecessary values hence Rs.28,93,231/- was added to the total income of the assessee on account of bogus purchases shown by five parties. 2. The Assessing Officer has also doubted above the transaction with 14 parties which mention in the Assessment which reads

DCIT 13(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Nihar Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3790/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ( Account Member)

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 234B

Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal erred in confirming addition of Rs. 1,476,642/- being 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases of Rs 11,813,136. 1.01 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal failed to appreciate the fact that purchases alleged to be bogus have been duly consumed ... therefore, entire amount of purchases aggregating to Rs.1,18,134,136 was added to the total income of the assessee on account of bogus purchases. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter to CIT(A) and furnished detailed submissions. It was submitted in detail with the help of documentary evidences that purchases

Nihaar Equipment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 13(1)(1)

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 3020/MUM/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ( Account Member)

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 234B

Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal erred in confirming addition of Rs. 1,476,642/- being 12.5% of the alleged bogus purchases of Rs 11,813,136. 1.01 The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal failed to appreciate the fact that purchases alleged to be bogus have been duly consumed ... therefore, entire amount of purchases aggregating to Rs.1,18,134,136 was added to the total income of the assessee on account of bogus purchases. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter to CIT(A) and furnished detailed submissions. It was submitted in detail with the help of documentary evidences that purchases

Metropolitan Eximchem Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT - 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, ground No 3 in assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 2935/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Satish MoryFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar (Sr.A.R.)
Section 143(3)

assessee 1) The Learned CIT (A) has erred in retaining the addition of Rs 2,32,328/- on account of so called bogus purchases effected by the petitioner. 2) The Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming and retaining the addition of Rs.8,15,231/- on account of capitalization ... record that no purchases were made at all, counsel for the Revenue would be justified in arguing that the entire amount of such bogus purchases should be added back to the income of the assessee. Such were the facts in the case of Pawanraj B. Bokadia (supra). This being

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Amrapali Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result both the appeal of Revenue i

ITA 670/JPR/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Mar 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal(CA)For Respondent: Shri Prem Prakash Meena(JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)

declared by the assessee. However, the ld. CIT(A) after considering the reasons for all GP Rate and the facts are that the alleged bogus purchases were less than 2% of the total turn-over directed to AO apply GP Rate of 17.27% only on sales corresponding to bogus purchase ... kindly inform the assessing officer to utilize this information in case of jewelers, selected for scrutiny. This information may held to detect the bogus purchases introduced in books of accounts to reduce the profit. (b) The facts relating to these parties are that the BCIT Wing of the Income

ITO 24(3)(3), Mumbai vs. S.D. Industries, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4934/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Naveen Kumar MishraFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Munde-CIT-DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147

assessed income was determined at Rs. 42,43,90/- which includes addition of Rs. 34,88,069/- on account of „bogus purchases‟. Aggrieved with the said decision of the AO, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority. 3. During the proceedings before the first appellate authority ... vide ITA No.5296/M/2013 (AY 2010-2011), dated 10.02.2016. Further, they mentioned that if the said approach of confirming the GP based additions on such bogus purchases involving such tainted suppliers, whose names are appeared in the said website of the Sales Tax Department, the instant appeal filed by the Revenue

Dharma Productions P Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 16(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 25/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Dharma Productions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of 29, Jains Arcade, 2Nd Floor, 14Th Road, Income-Tax- 16(1) Khar (West), Mumbai 400 052 Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, Pan:Aaacd 3889 K Room No.439,Mumbai .. Appellant Respondent Appellant By .. Shri Vijay Mehta, Ar .. Respondent By Shri B. S. Bist, Dr Date Of Hearing .. 23-12-2016 .. Date Of Pronouncement 21-03-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)

grossly erred in confirming the treatment of the A. O. in respect of purchases of Rs.32,239/- from M/s. Leo Impex, as bogus purchases. The appellant prays that the said disallowance is totally unjustified and may8 please be deleted.” 16. We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts

Nissan Copper Ltd, Valsad vs. DCIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai

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

ITA 2190/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am Nissan Copper Ltd. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shed No. J-20 Gidc Umbergaon Vs. Central Circle 20 Valsad, Valsad-396171 Mumbai Appellant .. Respondent Pan No. Aabcn0105B Assessee By .. Shri Prateek Jain, Ar .. Miss Anupama Singla, Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing .. 21-03-2017 Date Of Pronouncement .. 21-03-2017 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

Section 143(3)Section 80I

back to the file of the CIT(A). 5. After hearing both the sides, we find that there are two issues i.e. disallowance of bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 5,00,81,773/- and disallowance of claim of deduction under section 80IB of the Act amounting

Remi Process Plant and Machinery Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1817/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumar: (A.Y : 2011-12) Dcit, Circle – 3(3)(1) Vs. M/S. Remi Process Plant & Mumbai (Appellant) Machinery Ltd. 11 Cama Industrial Estate Walbhat Road, Goregaon (E) Mumbai 400 009 Pan : Aaacr0409H (Respondent) : M/S. Remi Process Plant & Vs. Dcit, Circle – 3(3)(1) Machinery Ltd. Mumbai 11 Cama Industrial Estate Walbhat Road, Goregaon (E) Mumbai 400 009 Pan : Aaacr0409H (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Purushottam Kumar Respondent By : Shri Bhagirath Singh Date Of Hearing : 28/02/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/03/2017

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Singh
Section 12ASection 143(3)

1817/MUM/2015 (Assessee’s appeal) :- 2. The first ground is disallowance of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 14A and second ground is addition on account of bogus purchase of Rs. 7,92,220/-. 3. The assessee has claimed long term capital gains on sale of investments ... purchases are made there cannot be corresponding sale. The only possibility which exists in such a situation is that assessee made the entire for bogus purchases at inflated rates while keeping the actual purchases at lower rates outside the books of account. In such a scenario if we approve

DCIT Cir 3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Remi Process Plant & Machinery Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1723/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri Rajesh Kumar: (A.Y : 2011-12) Dcit, Circle – 3(3)(1) Vs. M/S. Remi Process Plant & Mumbai (Appellant) Machinery Ltd. 11 Cama Industrial Estate Walbhat Road, Goregaon (E) Mumbai 400 009 Pan : Aaacr0409H (Respondent) : M/S. Remi Process Plant & Vs. Dcit, Circle – 3(3)(1) Machinery Ltd. Mumbai 11 Cama Industrial Estate Walbhat Road, Goregaon (E) Mumbai 400 009 Pan : Aaacr0409H (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Purushottam Kumar Respondent By : Shri Bhagirath Singh Date Of Hearing : 28/02/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/03/2017

For Appellant: Shri Purushottam KumarFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Singh
Section 12ASection 143(3)

1817/MUM/2015 (Assessee’s appeal) :- 2. The first ground is disallowance of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 14A and second ground is addition on account of bogus purchase of Rs. 7,92,220/-. 3. The assessee has claimed long term capital gains on sale of investments ... purchases are made there cannot be corresponding sale. The only possibility which exists in such a situation is that assessee made the entire for bogus purchases at inflated rates while keeping the actual purchases at lower rates outside the books of account. In such a scenario if we approve

ITO 32(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Glazers India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal for the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4120/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am Income Tax Officer-32(1)(5), M/S Glazers India, Room No.203,C-11, 2Nd Floor,, 14, Mahavir Niwas, Rsc-14 फनधभ/ Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Gorai, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Borivali West, Vs. Bandra (E), Mumbai-400092 Mumbai-400051. (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : स्थधमी रेखध सं./ Pan : Aaefg1720F (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीरधथी की ओय से /Appellant By : Ms.Anupama Singla प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri Rashmikat C Modi & Ms.Ketki Rajeshirke सुनवधई की तधयीख /Date Of Hearing : 14.1.2017 घोषणध की तधयीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.3.2017

For Appellant: Ms.Anupama SinglaFor Respondent: Shri Rashmikat C Modi
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69C

assessment years 2010-11 wherein the revenue has raised the issue of deletion of unexplained expenditure of Rs.43,77,342/- on account of bogus purchase as against the addition of 2 Rs.49,74,242/- made by the AO under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Brief facts ... list of Hawala operators as published by the Sales Tax Department of Government of Maharashtra and accordingly, the AO treated these purchases as bogus purchases and added the same to the total income of the assessee u/s 69C of the Act by framing the assessment u/s 143(3) vide

Romila M. Nagpal, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 6388/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Gautam Salecha-ARFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen-DR
Section 133Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

supplier were not found at the given addresses, that it was a case of purchases made form bogus parties rather than a case of bogus purchases,that without making purchases it was not possible for assessee to complete the sales, that the AO had rightly invoked the provisions of section ... held that purchases declared by the assessee of Rs.77,51,496/- from four parties, detailed in para-1 of the assessment order are bogus purchases. According to the Assessing Officer, assessee did not make actual purchases from such four parties because as per the information received from the Investment Wing

Harish Radeshyam Khandelwal, Mumbai vs. ITO 30(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5515/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5515/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Shri Harish Radeshyam The Income Tax Officer – बनाम/ Khandelwal, 30(1)(4), V. C/O D.C. Jain & Co., C-13, 6 Th Floor, 75, Bombay Mutual Bldg. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, 293, Room No. 604, Dr. D.N. Road, Fort, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400 001. Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabpk6531H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D.C. JainFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 147Section 148

Information was received by AO from Director General of Income-tax (Inv.), Mumbai that some businessmen had indulged in the acceptance of bogus purchase bills from bogus hawala dealers who were engaged in providing accommodation entries. It was informed to the A.O. that Sales Tax Department, Mumbai, Govt. of Maharashtra ... parties to their customers and they issued only bogus bills after charging commission. It was informed to A.O. that assessee is beneficiary of such bogus purchase bills and during previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, the assessee had accepted bogus bills from following four parties:- Name

ITO 32(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Abhay Automotive Company, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4939/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Sighi.T.A. No.4939/M/2016 (Assessment Year: 2009-2010) Ito-32(1)(1), फनाभ/ M/S. Abhay Automotive R.No.201, C-11, 2Nd Floor, Company, Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc, B/402, Sumer Nagar, Building Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051. No.3, S.V. Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai-400092. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aajfa3745K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : None

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai, DRFor Respondent: None
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

erred in restricting addition to Rs. 6,03,737/- (@ 13.76% of Rs. 43,87,622/-) u/s 69C of the Act on account of bogus purchases as against addition of Rs. 43,87,622/- made by the AO without appreciating that the assessee has not produced any cogent evidence to substantiate ... assessed income was determined at Rs. 45,47,642/-. In the assessment, AO made addition of Rs.43,87,622/- on account of „bogus purchases‟ u/s 69C of the Act. During the assessment proceedings, AO noticed that during the year assessee made purchases from certain parties, whose names are appearing

ITO 33(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Synergy Infrastructures, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4103/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Sandeep Gosaini.T.A. No.4103/M/2016 (Assessment Year: 2011-2012) Ito-33(3)(4), फनाभ/ Synergy Infrastructures, R.No.604, C-12, 01, Bharat Villa, Bhogilal Vs. Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc, Fadia Road, Kandivali (W), Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051. Mumbai – 400 067. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Abjfs3371A (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Vishwas Mundhe, Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : None

For Appellant: Shri Vishwas Mundhe, DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 69C

case and in law, Ld CIT (A) has erred in restricting the addition of Rs. 1,27,15,912/- made in respect of bogus purchases to Rs. 15,89,489/- especially when CIT () has clearly found that the assessee did not fully substantiate the claim of genuine purchases ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in determining the profit percentage at the rate of 12.5% of bogus purchases while the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the purchases claimed.” 2. The only issue raised in this appeal relates to the relief

Sri Motilal Jain, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-35(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1986/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

additions of Rs.2,65,044/-, Rs.1,56,728/- and Rs.2,28,800/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of the alleged bogus purchases to the total income of the assessee for A.Y. 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 respectively, which are confirmed by the ld. CIT(Appeals). I.T.A ... three years under consideration challenging the validity of the said assessments as well as disputing the additions made therein on account of bogus purchases on merits. The ld. CIT(Appeals), however, did not find merit in the said appeala and proceeded to dismiss the same by his appellate orders dated

Visual Citi Signs & Displays Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 7(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5237/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5237/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) M/S Visual Citi Signs & Income Tax Officer- Ward बनाम/ Displays Private Limited, 7(3)(1), V. Unit No. 18, Mumbai. Nanddham Premises, 14-14A, A.K.R. Mhatre Marg, Near Reay Road Railway Station, Reay Road, Mumbai – 400 010. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaccv 2681H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Minhazali N. LadiwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, DR
Section 143(3)

that certain parties are issuing accommodation entries without actual delivery of the goods. Information was also received by the AO from DGIT(Inv.) regarding bogus purchases. The AO noticed three such purchases in the case of the assessee wherein assessee company was beneficiary with regard to the purported transaction ... learned CIT(A) repelled the contentions of the assessee to bring to tax gross profit ratio instead of disallowing entire purchases as alleged bogus purchases because the assessee failed to prove that material so purchased from these parties was consumed or sold or was part of stock of the assessee

Asst CIT 14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Batliboi Environmental Enginnering Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue and that of the assessee for A

ITA 3482/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sanjay Gargm/S. Batliboi Environmental D C I T – 14(1)(1) Engineering Ltd. 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan 25/26, Deonar Ancillary Indl. Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Estate. Deonar, Govandi (W) Mumbai 400043 Pan – Aaach1091B Appellant Respondent A C I T – 14(1)(1) M/S. Batliboi Environmental Room No. 460, 4Th Floor Engineering Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. 25/26, Deonar Ancillary Indl. Mumbai 400020 Estate. Deonar, Govandi (W) Mumbai 400043 Pan – Aaach1091B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V. MohanFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

from Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra by the Assessing Officer (AO) that certain bogus parties have provided accommodation entries by issuing bills for bogus purchases to a large number of taxpayers without actual supply of goods. One of such parties, was the assessee in the case on hand ... obtained bogus purchase bills amounting to `28,07,050/- from M/s. Chirag Steel Centre in the year under consideration, as per statements given before Sales Tax Department. The AO treated M/s. Chirag Steel Centre as a bogus dealer, providing accommodation bills. Observing that this party was not an approved vendor

Batliboi Inviornmental Engineering Ltd, Kalyan vs. DCIT 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue and that of the assessee for A

ITA 2840/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sanjay Gargm/S. Batliboi Environmental D C I T – 14(1)(1) Engineering Ltd. 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan 25/26, Deonar Ancillary Indl. Vs. M.K. Road, Mumbai 400020 Estate. Deonar, Govandi (W) Mumbai 400043 Pan – Aaach1091B Appellant Respondent A C I T – 14(1)(1) M/S. Batliboi Environmental Room No. 460, 4Th Floor Engineering Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. 25/26, Deonar Ancillary Indl. Mumbai 400020 Estate. Deonar, Govandi (W) Mumbai 400043 Pan – Aaach1091B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V. MohanFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

from Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra by the Assessing Officer (AO) that certain bogus parties have provided accommodation entries by issuing bills for bogus purchases to a large number of taxpayers without actual supply of goods. One of such parties, was the assessee in the case on hand ... obtained bogus purchase bills amounting to `28,07,050/- from M/s. Chirag Steel Centre in the year under consideration, as per statements given before Sales Tax Department. The AO treated M/s. Chirag Steel Centre as a bogus dealer, providing accommodation bills. Observing that this party was not an approved vendor

Prasad Electrical Engineering P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 1, Kalyan

In the result this appeal by the revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1851/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sanjay Garg

For Appellant: Shri. V.G. GindeFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia
Section 131Section 131(1)Section 250

received from the Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra, which gave names and addresses and other relevant details of certain persons who had provided entries for bogus purchase bills to a large number of tax payers. This information also contained the details of the beneficiaries of such bogus bills. The persons ... parties and consequently, squarely admitted for re-computation of the assessee company’s income for the year under consideration by including the amount of bogus purchases reflected from these three parties. Prasad Electrical Engineering P.Ltd. ITA No. 1851/Mum./2015 5. Up on assessee’s appeal Ld. CIT-A considered