“bogus purchases”

Himanshu Dilip Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 19(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Himanshu Dilip Jain Income Tax Officer-19(1)(5) 173, Kika Street, Gulal Wadi, Room No. 228, Matru Mandir, Mumbai-400 004 Vs. Tardeo, Grant Road, Mumbai-400 007

erred in confirming the action of A.O. in disallowing a sum of Rs.81,47,266/-, on account of alleged bogus purchases. 2 Himanshu Dilip Jain vs. ITO 3. The brief facts are that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in all kinds of reseller in ferrous

Rahul Chandrakant Jhaveri, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 8(2), Mumbai

In the result, all these appeals are allowed in accordance with the above direction

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19

sole intention of saving the beneficiaries. j. Huge commission income is estimated by the learned assessing officer at the rate of 5% of bogus purchases and bogus sales. In fact, this commission income is paid by the beneficiaries, therefore the income tax impact of this entries and assessment is also

ITO 27(3)(1), Mumbai, Vashi vs. Sudarshan Vithal Kote, Ghatkopar West

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year: 2010-11 Ito-27(3)(1), Mumbai Sudarshan Vithal Kote

order of lower authority. 7. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. The assessing officer has estimated the profit of alleged bogus purchases of Rs. 1,80,59,239/- @ 25% which comes to Rs. 45,14,810/- and added to the total income of the assessee ... However, we find that ld. CIT(A) has restricted the aforesaid addition to the extent of Rs. 10% of the bogus purchases as against 25% of the bogus purchases made by the assessing officer. The revenue has filed appeal before the ITAT in respect of the quantum addition

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Nakodiam Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Juducial Member

appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has restricted the addition to the extent of 2% of the bogus purchases. The assessing officer has levied penalty of Rs. 68,405/- u/s 271(1(c) of the Act vide order dated 04.02.2022. 3. The assessee filed appeal before ... record. The case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing that assessee had obtained accommodation entries of bogus purchases from the entity that indulged in providing accommodation entries without actual delivery of goods. Therefore, the AO has estimated the profit element embedded

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Nakodiam Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Juducial Member

appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has restricted the addition to the extent of 2% of the bogus purchases. The assessing officer has levied penalty of Rs. 68,405/- u/s 271(1(c) of the Act vide order dated 04.02.2022. 3. The assessee filed appeal before ... record. The case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing that assessee had obtained accommodation entries of bogus purchases from the entity that indulged in providing accommodation entries without actual delivery of goods. Therefore, the AO has estimated the profit element embedded

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax -5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Nakodiam Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Juducial Member

appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has restricted the addition to the extent of 2% of the bogus purchases. The assessing officer has levied penalty of Rs. 68,405/- u/s 271(1(c) of the Act vide order dated 04.02.2022. 3. The assessee filed appeal before ... record. The case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of information received from Investigation Wing that assessee had obtained accommodation entries of bogus purchases from the entity that indulged in providing accommodation entries without actual delivery of goods. Therefore, the AO has estimated the profit element embedded

Circumference Designs Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 12(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Smt. Renu Jauhricircumference Designs V/S. Ito, Ward 12(1)(1), Pvt. Ltd. बनाम Aayakar Bhavan, 402 Lake View Opp. Churchgate, Bandra Talao, Bandra Mumbai-400020 West, Mumbai-400050 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcc6040Q Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रतिवादी ..

filed on 28.09.2011 which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing regarding bogus purchase bills, the case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act. The purchases made by the assessee to the tune ... such the reopening of the case is held to be as per law and based on information available regarding the bogus purchases. 6. As regard the merits, the assessee has contended that if the GP rate of 25% on alleged bogus purchases is applied, the overall gross profit would become

Mahavir Metal and Alloys, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Matrumandir Nana Chowk, Mumbai

Bench: MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

that the Appellant has taken accommodation entry of INR 65,20,767/-. However, the nature of such accommodation entry being an accommodation entry for bogus purchases or for bogus unsecured loan has not been stated. The fact that CIT(A) has restricted the addition made under Section

Bharatkumar Anraj Bhansali, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, ground number 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the appeal are dismissed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am) I.T.A. No. 340/Mum/2024 (A.Y. 2009-10) Bharat Kumar Anraj Bhansali Vs. Ito, Ward 19(1)(2) Room No. 10, 3Rd Floor. Matru Mandir Saraswat Building 2Nd Floor Banganga Road Tardeo Road Walkeshwar, Mumbai-400 Mumbai-400 007. 006. Pan : Aaepb8134C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ravi Gupta Department By Shri R.R. Makwana Date Of Hearing 10.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2024 O R D E R 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi (The Learned Cit – A) For Assessment Year 2009 – 10 Dated 24/2/2023 Wherein The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 With Section 148 Read With Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 28/3/2015 Was Dismissed. 2. Therefore, The Assessee Is Aggrieved With The Same Has Preferred This Appeal Raising Several Grounds. 3. The Fact Of The Case Shows That The Assessee Is An Individual Where He Filed His Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 164,870 As He Is Dealing As A Trader In Farah’S & Nonferrous Metal. The Name Of The Assessee Appears As A Beneficiary In Obtaining Accommodation Entries & Hawala Bills From Non-Existing Entity Is Discovered By Maharashtra Sales Tax Department & Information Passed On To The Assessing Officer By The Director General Of Income Tax, Investigation

cross examination was not afforded to the assessee. On the merits he submits that a hundred percent of the addition of the alleged bogus purchases is beyond any comprehension because only the profit element would have been added. It was further stated that opportunity of hearing is not provided ... learned lower authorities. Admittedly in this case, the information was received that assessee is one of the beneficiaries of obtaining accommodation bills of bogus purchases from one party. There is tangible material, information available from the sales tax department as well as the director general of income tax investigation. Assessee

Ajit Metal Syndicate, Mumbai - Gulalwadi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai, Mumbai Lalbaug

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm M/S Ajit Metal Syndicate Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 19 (1) (1) 123, Kika Street Gulalwadi Piramal Chambers Mumbai – 4 Lal Baug Parel Mumbai-400 012 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafa1651M Assessee By : Shri Satyaprakash Singh Ca Revenue By : Shri Rajnish Yadav , Sr Dr

assessee is squarely covered by the decision of the honourable Bombay High Court wherein it has been stated that in case of bogus purchases, only the profit element is required to be added and such profit element is to be measured and to be brought to the extent of untainted ... perused the orders of the learned that lower authorities. The learned assessing officer on finding that the assessee has indulged into obtaining the bogus purchase bills from several parties, he rejected the books of accounts of the assessee under section 145 of the act and thereafter determined profit

Abrar Husain Syed, Mumbai vs. ITO -18(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi ( (Accountant Member)

perused the orders of the learned lower authorities. The issue here is that the assessee is found to have been the beneficiary of the bogus purchases from 2 traders wherefrom it was found that assessee has purchased invoices but has not purchased the goods and therefore the learned assessing officer ... purchases cannot be accepted, then the natural course would be to make an addition to the extent of the profit involved in such bogus purchases which is less than the net profit shown from genuine purchases. This is so because the intention of the bogus purchases would be to reduce

Samir Navin Shah, Mumbai vs. Circle 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2014-15 Mr. Samir Navin Shah Circle 19(3) Shreeji Arcade, Matru Mandir, Shreeji Chambers, Mumbai Vs. Tata Road No. 1 & 2, Opera House, Maharashtra- 400004. Pan: Aazps9084M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For : Assessee By : Shri V. P. Kothari, A.R. Revenue By : Smt. Kakoli Uttam Ghosh, D.R.

controlled by Shri Bhanwarlal Jain and group and this concerns exist in name only and created for the purpose of providing accommodation entries of bogus purchases to various parties. The appellant Shri Sameer Navin Shah was also taken accommodation entries of purchases from the following parties for the assessment year ... under : - “OBSERVATION AND DECISION: The appellant has filed various case laws and majority of the case laws are against assessment of the whole bogus purchases as income. The AO has accepted that there will be purchases against the sales made and has only added an additional margin

Milan Manubhai Sheth, Ghatkopar West vs. Income Tax Officer, Circle 27(2), Mumbai, It Office, Vashi Railway Station Building

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2009-10 Milan Manubhai Sheth Income Tax Officer, Shop No.1, Circle 27(2) Patanwala Compound, It Office, Vs. Next To Fitness Club, Vashi Railway Station Lbs Marg, Building, Maharashtra- 400086. Navi Mumbai. Pan: Aamps3459B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For : Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Kakoli Ghosh, Sr. D.R.

without prejudice to any others: 1. The learned Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.10,62,906/- as bogus purchases. 2. The learned Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming that reopening is correct. 3. The learned Joint Commissioner of Income ... department had conducted independent enquiries in each of the Hawala parties including those parties from whom the assessee had taken accommodation entries of bogus purchases amounting to Rs.10,62,906/-. The sale tax department had conducted independent enquiries and found out that these parties were indulged into activities like issuing

Actube Enterprise, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 34(1)(1), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm Income Tax Officer, Actube Enterprise Ward 34(1)(1), 82, Narayan Dhuru Street, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, Mumbai-400 003 Mumbai-400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabfa2570J

challenge of the order of the ITAT, we direct the learned Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to the extent of 12.5% of such bogus purchases. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 08. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced

Income Tax Officer -19(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Khemaram Mandrupji Prajapati, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2011-12 Income Tax Officer- Shri. Khemaram 19(2)(2) Mandrupji Prajapati Room No. 503, Room No. 2, 5Th Floor, Vs. Alka Smurti, Piramal Chamber, 20 Bhandari Street, 1St Kumbharwada Lane, Lalbaugh, Parel- 400012. Mumbai- 400004. Pan: Alqpp452In (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For : Assessee By : Shri Mayur Makadia, A.R. Revenue By : Ms. Kakoli Ghosh, Sr. D.R.

erred in restricting the addition @ 5% as against 12.5% addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases of Rs.1,91,16,306/-, by ignoring the fact that the Sales Tax Department, Govt. of Maharashtra has proved beyond doubt that alleged eight parties were declared as hawala traders ... erred in restricting the addition @ 5% as against 12.5% addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus purchases of Rs.1,91,16,306/-, by ignoring the fact that action of the Assessing Officer was based on credible information received from the Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra State, and that