“bogus purchases”

Magoxy Infrastructure P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Joginger Singh & Shri D. Karunakara Rao

erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 16,00,561/- on account of alleged bogus purchases of bricks and kadappa from M/s. Top Bricks & Sand Supplier and M/s. Raj Traders, without considering the facts & circumstances of the case. 2. On the facts ... well as in law, the Ld CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in treating the genuine purchases as alleged bogus purchases on the basis of the statement of third party, without providing the opportunity to cross examination of such parties as requested by the appellant

ITO 14(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Reshma Enterprises, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Reshma Enterprises, Ito Wd 14(2)(3), 282, Kalbadevi Rd. बनाम/ Earnest House, Mumbai-400002 Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ito Wd 14(2)(3), Reshma Enterprises, Earnest House, 282, Kalbadevi Rd. बनाम/ Nariman Point Mumbai-400002 Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Respondent) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B Assessment Year: 2005-06 Reshma Enterprises, Ito Wd 14(2)(3), 282, Kalbadevi Rd. Earnest House, बनाम/ Mumbai-400002 Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B

confirming the addition at least to the extent of peak of the purchases made from such parties on account of bogus purchases made in cash from the open market out of unaccounted cash, in view of the decision held by the Hon'ble ITAT's C-Bench, Ahmedabad ... merely on the statement made by a person that the purchases are bogus and not recorded in his books cannot be held to be bogus purchases. The appellant further submitted that the Ld. AO has not given the pel1ant an opportunity to cross examine these parties in respect of their

Reshma Enterprises, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 14(2)(3), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2004-05 Reshma Enterprises, Ito Wd 14(2)(3), 282, Kalbadevi Rd. बनाम/ Earnest House, Mumbai-400002 Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B Assessment Year: 2004-05 Ito Wd 14(2)(3), Reshma Enterprises, Earnest House, 282, Kalbadevi Rd. बनाम/ Nariman Point Mumbai-400002 Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Respondent) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B Assessment Year: 2005-06 Reshma Enterprises, Ito Wd 14(2)(3), 282, Kalbadevi Rd. Earnest House, बनाम/ Mumbai-400002 Nariman Point Vs. Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Revenue) P.A. No. Aaafr7937B

confirming the addition at least to the extent of peak of the purchases made from such parties on account of bogus purchases made in cash from the open market out of unaccounted cash, in view of the decision held by the Hon'ble ITAT's C-Bench, Ahmedabad ... merely on the statement made by a person that the purchases are bogus and not recorded in his books cannot be held to be bogus purchases. The appellant further submitted that the Ld. AO has not given the pel1ant an opportunity to cross examine these parties in respect of their

ACIT 25(3), Mumbai vs. Vishal P. Mehta, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain A C I T – 25(3) Shri Vishal P. Mehta 308, C—11, Bandra Kurla A/305, Sairaj Garden Vs. Complex, Bandra (E) Iraniwadi Road No. 3 Mumbai 400051 Kandivali (W), Mumbai -067 Pan – Afgpm0875G Appellant Respondent

contra, the learned counsel for the assessee strongly supported the impugned order of the learned CIT(A), deleting the additions on account of bogus purchases of `3,75,87,293/- made by the AO under section 69C of the Act. It was submitted that, the assessee to prove the genuineness

Kinjal Construction Co. & Chirag Construction Co. (Jv), Mumbai vs. ITO 18(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amarjit Singh

grounds, assessee raised the issues relating to validity of the reopening proceedings based on the information received from the DGIT (Inv) relating to the bogus purchases and the merits related issues relating to the conclusion of the CIT (A) in confirming the GP addition @ 12.5% of the suspected purchases amounting ... surveyed u/s 133A of the Act on 4.12.2010 relevant to the AY 2011-12. Information was received from the DGIT (Inv) office regarding certain bogus purchases by the assessee from S. S. Enterprises and National Trading Co. As per the assessment order, the said parties filed the affidavits with

K Uttamlal (Exports) P Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

learned CIT(A) had erred in confirming the addition of Rs.29,353/- being the purchases from M/s. Mahalaxmi Corporation by treating the same as bogus purchases as claimed by the Assessing Officer. Under the facts and circumstances of the matter, he ought not to have confirmed the said addition ... rival submissions. In our considered opinion, the Assessing Officer has mechanically made the addition without establishing on a concrete basis that assessee had effected bogus purchases. In fact, the alleged statement of the supplier, made to the Sales Tax Department, which is referred to by the Assessing Officer

K Uttamlal (Exports) P Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh

learned CIT(A) had erred in confirming the addition of Rs.29,353/- being the purchases from M/s. Mahalaxmi Corporation by treating the same as bogus purchases as claimed by the Assessing Officer. Under the facts and circumstances of the matter, he ought not to have confirmed the said addition ... rival submissions. In our considered opinion, the Assessing Officer has mechanically made the addition without establishing on a concrete basis that assessee had effected bogus purchases. In fact, the alleged statement of the supplier, made to the Sales Tax Department, which is referred to by the Assessing Officer

Asst CIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Vijay M Vaghani, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and assessee’s C

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 3434/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11)

ld.CIT(A) erred in restricting of addition of Rs.46,50,981/- to Rs.6,97,647/- u/s 69C of the Act as profit on the bogus purchases." 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) erred in applying the ratio of Nikunj

Asst CIT Cir 3, Kalyan vs. Rich & Royal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is treated as dismissed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

justified in restricting the addition to 2% of Rs.51,47,044/- made on account of bogus purchases from 5 parties overlooking the fact that the purchases are bogus?” 3 I.T.A. No.6610 & 6652 /Mum/2013 2. The common issue involved in both the appeals is with regard to addition made ... account of bogus purchases from 5 parties. 3. The brief facts are that the assessee was engaged in the business of retail trade business in cloth and readymade garments and other related products. The assessee is authorised dealer of cloth and garments of Raymond brand. During the assessment proceedings

ACIT 17(3), Mumbai vs. Vasant Construction Company (I), Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosaina C I T - 7(3) M/S. Vasant Construction Room No. 137, 1St Floor Company (I) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. 33/37, 1St Floor Mumbai 400020 Chandra Bhuvan Building Mumbai 400003 Pan - Aaafv0909M Appellant Respondent

Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962 without affording the AO any opportunity to verify and rebut the same before adjudicating the matter of bogus purchases and therefore the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) is not sustainable. According to the 4 M/s. Vasant Construction Compnay (I) learned

Jai Hind Paper Mart, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(3), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.6134 /Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Jai Hind Paper Mart Income Tax Officer 14(2)(3), 3Rd Floor, Earnest House 186, Hiramanek Bldg, बिधम/ Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Nariman Point, Vs. Chira Bazar, Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-400 002. स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं ./Pan/Gir No. Aaafj3532E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.6144 /Mum/2014 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer 14(2)(3), M/S. Jai Hind Paper Mart 3Rd Floor, Earnest House 186, Hiramanek Bldg, बिधम/ Nariman Point, Dadiseth Agiary Lane, Vs. Mumbai-400 021. Chira Bazar, Mumbai-400 002. स्थामी रेखा सं./जीआइआय सं ./Pan/Gir No. Aaafj3532E (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) : अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Ratan Samul प्रत्मथी की ओय से/Respondent By : Shri K. Ravi Kiran

erred in treating the same as unexplained expenditure.” However, the revenue is aggrieved for deleting the addition of Rs.4,98,89,200/- out of bogus purchases. 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that the assessee filed return of income ... appeal before us. We have considered rival contentions and found that CIT(A) has restricted the addition to the extent of 15% on net bogus purchases, on the plea that assessee has earned additional G.P. @15% on corresponding sales against alleged purchases. 5. We have considered rival contentions and gone

Nepean Holdings P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 42, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Ravish Sood

orders of the authorities below and delete the impugned additions of Rs. 4,56,250/- and Rs. 90,56,250/- on account of bogus purchases for assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively.” 5. Considering the above, we are of the opinion that the grounds raised by the assessee

Asst CIT Palghar Cir Palghar, Palghar vs. Parvez Musa Khan, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the CO raised by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Ravish Sood

erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 26,78,418/- out of the total addition of Rs. 35,71,228/- made on account of bogus purchases, despite holding that the purchases were not genuine and the assessee failed to prove genuineness of the transactions. 2. On the facts ... added to the income of the assessee. Thus, we upheld the order of the CIT (A) in deleting the entire addition on account of bogus purchases considering the fact that the Revenue did not disturb the sales of the assessee and also in view of the fact that

Rajendra Developers, Mumbai vs. ACIT 21(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

only issue involved in this appeal of the assessee against order of the CIT (A) confirming the addition made by the AO by disallowing bogus purchases of Rs.5,16,880/-. 3. We have heard the rival contentions and also gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Briefly stated ... same was declared as hawala dealer by the Sales Tax Department. The Assessing Officer disallowed the 2 purchases made from M/s. SAM Enterprises as bogus purchases amounting to Rs.5,16,880/-. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT (A) who also confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer

DCIT Cir 29(3), Mumbai vs. Sharad V. Shah, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Amarjit Singh: (A.Y : 2006-07)

made by the AO u/s 69C of the act and in restricting the addition to Rs.15,05,631/- being 10% of the bogus purchases without appreciating the fact that the assessee has failed to prove the genuineness of the purchases by not producing purchase parties for verification ... circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition to Rs.15,05,631/- being 10% of the bogus purchases without appreciating the fact that the parties have been declared as bogus hawala providers by the Sales Tax Department on the basis of corroborative evidence available with

DCIT 10(3), Mumbai vs. Jakharia Fabrics P.Ltd, Mumbai

Appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, 1. the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that out of the total bogus purchases of Rs. 1,14,92,970/-, only 17.5% be treated as bogus purchases. 2 I.T.A. No.6851 /Mum/2014 2. "On the facts ... Assessing Officer found that in view of the information received from the Investigation Wing of Income-tax Department, Mumbai, the assessee had obtained bogus purchase bills aggregating to Rs.1,14,92,970 from 8 parties, whose details have been given at paragraph 4 of the assessment order. The assessee

V.K. Developers, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainm/S. V.K. Developers Income Tax Officer 604, 6Th Floor Ward 24(2)(3) C/O. Vinod V. Bhatia Vs. Mumbai Sarala Sadan, S.G. Road Malad (W), Mumbai 400064 Pan - Aagfv0235L Appellant Respondent

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "F" Bench, Mumbai Before Shri Jason P. Boaz, Accountant Member and Shri Sandeep Gosain

Viren Ahuja, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 47, Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 4521/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10)

account of various discrepancies found in the books of accounts of the companies Bermaco Industries Ltd & Bermaco Energy Systems Ltd on the issues namely bogus purchases. However, the statement u/s 132(4) was retracted by Shri Viren Ahuja vide affidavit dated 24.11.2009. After serving statutory notices u/s 153A

Rich & Royal, Thane vs. ACIT Cir 3, Kalyan

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in restricting the addition to 25% of Rs.79,68,784/- made on account of bogus purchases from 03 parties overlooking the fact that the entire purchases were bogus specially when the Ld.CIT(A) has himself held that the genuineness ... parties and the source of alleged actual purchases if any had not been entered in the books of accounts and therefore, 100% of the bogus purchases disallowed ought to have been upheld. 3. The appellant craves leave to add amend alter or delete any ground of appeal. 4. The order

DCIT 30(3), Mumbai vs. Shivshankar R. Sharma, Mumbai

In the result both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

respectively. 2. In both the appeals, the revenue is aggrieved by the action of CIT(A) in giving part relief with respect to the bogus purchases. 3. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. During the course of assessment for A.Y.2010-11, the AO observed that as per information received ... available easily. 2. He has taken place order telephonically for material and purchases materials through broker and the payments for all the alleged bogus purchases have been made by the account payee cheques. 3. His bills are certified by the Government Authority and for executing his work