BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

46 results for “bogus purchases”+ Bogus/Accommodation Entryclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi54Mumbai46Kolkata16Hyderabad6Raipur5Surat4Jaipur4Bangalore4Ahmedabad3Agra2Indore1

Key Topics

Section 14846Section 14742Section 143(3)37Addition to Income35Section 6831Section 10(38)31Section 271(1)(c)28Section 143(2)15Section 69C13

DANCO ENTERPRISES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 9(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for stati...

ITA 5022/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Mr. Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: 17/12/2024
Section 147Section 69C

bogus/accommodation Danco Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd. Danco Enterprises India Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos. 5022 & 5023/MUM/2024 entry from ‘One World One World group’ concern of bogu concern of bogus purchases

NAVNIDHI STEEL AND ENGG CO. P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 46 · Page 1 of 3

Disallowance13
Bogus Purchases12
Search & Seizure11
ITA 3420/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

bogus/accommodation bills without actual supplying any material. . The parties to whom notices u/s 133(6) of 1961 Act were issued did not supplied complete information. Thus, AO concluded that the assessee purchased material from grey market at lower prices and to cover/match for sales actually made by the assessee, the assessee obtained bogus bills from these parties who were benami

SURESH L. SATYANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 23(3)(4), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3452/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri Biren GabhawalaFor Respondent: Shri B.S. Bist, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

bogus/accommodation bills without actual supplying any material. . The parties to whom notices u/s 133(6) of 1961 Act were issued did not supplied complete information. Thus, AO concluded that the assessee purchased material from grey market at lower prices and to cover/match for sales actually made by the assessee, the assessee obtained bogus bills from these parties who were benami

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. SANDEEP RAMESH SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, we dismiss both the appeal of the assessee as well of Revenue

ITA 251/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Income Tax Officer- Vs. Sandeep Ramesh Shah 19(3)(1), Piramal Reshmo Mac Tools Centre Chamber, Room No.405, 2/10, Summit House, Lalbaug Forjett Hill Road, Opp Mumbai – 400 012 Bhatia Hospital, Mumbai – 400036 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aafps2666B Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: H.M. Bhatt
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

bogus/accommodation entries of purchases provided by certain parties as per the information provided by the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra. As per the information provided during the financial year 2010-11 the assessee had obtained the accommodation entries of purchases from the following parties: P a g e | 2 ITO-19(3)(1) Vs. Sandeep Ramesh Shah

ITO-19(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHANKARLAL BHIMRAJ BHANSALI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 807/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, SR. D.R
Section 250

bogus purchases/accommodation entry was not correct. The assessee has claimed that entire purchases and sales were genuine & verifiable with reference to the documents- purchase bills, stock register, bank statement showing payment to these concerns. Since the entire sales have been accepted by the AO in terms of quantity and amount, then as per the assessee there is no scope

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs. GOVINDBHAI TRIBHUVANDAS PATEL, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed, whereas the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 4827/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

bogus purchases of Rs.10,16,50,735/- instead of 100% addition made by the AO. 5. The Revenue Department, being aggrieved, mainly on the reduction of addition to 12.5%, is in appeal before us, whereas the Assessee by filing separate appeal has challenged the addition restricted to 12.5% on account of disallowance of purchases alleged to be bogus/accommodation entries

GOVINDBHAI TRIBHUVANDAS PATEL,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed, whereas the appeal filed by the Revenue Department stands dismissed

ITA 4322/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Viraj Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

bogus purchases of Rs.10,16,50,735/- instead of 100% addition made by the AO. 5. The Revenue Department, being aggrieved, mainly on the reduction of addition to 12.5%, is in appeal before us, whereas the Assessee by filing separate appeal has challenged the addition restricted to 12.5% on account of disallowance of purchases alleged to be bogus/accommodation entries

SEJAL EXPORT (INDIA),MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1(2), MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby

ITA 3859/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Shamimyahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 147Section 14ASection 153ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)

bogus purchase/accommodation entries @ 7.3%. The CIT(A) assessed the profit ratio on gross profit @ of 2%. It is not in dispute that the profit element was assessed on the bogus/accommodation purchase

BIREN SURESH KARANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-31(1)(3), MUM

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

ITA 1076/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1577/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1076/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1077/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Biren Suresh Karani बिधम/ Ito-31(1)(3) C-13, 3Rd Floor, Pratyakshakar Flat No.1101, Shreyas Vs. Apartments, Sarjan Chsl, Bhawan, Bandra Kurla Lallubhai Shamaldas Road, Complex, Bandra (E), Andhei West, Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aampk6502D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mehul Shah Revenue By: Shri Dharamvir D. Yadav (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 05.04.2023 & Order Dated 21.09.2022 For Ay. 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Issue Permeating In All The Assessment Years Are The Same Except Difference In Sum/Figures. & It Is Noted That Even Though, The Assessee In Ay. 2009-10, Has Raised Ground No. 2, It Has Not Been Pressed [I.E. For Ay 2009-10, According To Ao, The Purchase Made By

For Appellant: Shri Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir D. Yadav (Sr. AR)

entries (providing bogus bills for commission without genuine transaction of purchase & sales of goods), the AO, reopened the assessment of the assessee u/s 147 of the Act; and taking note that the assessee had shown to have transacted with the dealers (identified by the Sales Tax Department of Maharashtra), he directed the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transaction

BIREN SURESH KARANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-31(1)(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1077/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1577/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1076/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1077/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Biren Suresh Karani बिधम/ Ito-31(1)(3) C-13, 3Rd Floor, Pratyakshakar Flat No.1101, Shreyas Vs. Apartments, Sarjan Chsl, Bhawan, Bandra Kurla Lallubhai Shamaldas Road, Complex, Bandra (E), Andhei West, Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aampk6502D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mehul Shah Revenue By: Shri Dharamvir D. Yadav (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 05.04.2023 & Order Dated 21.09.2022 For Ay. 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Issue Permeating In All The Assessment Years Are The Same Except Difference In Sum/Figures. & It Is Noted That Even Though, The Assessee In Ay. 2009-10, Has Raised Ground No. 2, It Has Not Been Pressed [I.E. For Ay 2009-10, According To Ao, The Purchase Made By

For Appellant: Shri Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir D. Yadav (Sr. AR)

entries (providing bogus bills for commission without genuine transaction of purchase & sales of goods), the AO, reopened the assessment of the assessee u/s 147 of the Act; and taking note that the assessee had shown to have transacted with the dealers (identified by the Sales Tax Department of Maharashtra), he directed the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transaction

BIREN SURESH KARANI,MUMBAI vs. ITO-31(1)(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 1577/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1577/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1076/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1077/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Biren Suresh Karani बिधम/ Ito-31(1)(3) C-13, 3Rd Floor, Pratyakshakar Flat No.1101, Shreyas Vs. Apartments, Sarjan Chsl, Bhawan, Bandra Kurla Lallubhai Shamaldas Road, Complex, Bandra (E), Andhei West, Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400058. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aampk6502D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mehul Shah Revenue By: Shri Dharamvir D. Yadav (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 05.04.2023 & Order Dated 21.09.2022 For Ay. 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Issue Permeating In All The Assessment Years Are The Same Except Difference In Sum/Figures. & It Is Noted That Even Though, The Assessee In Ay. 2009-10, Has Raised Ground No. 2, It Has Not Been Pressed [I.E. For Ay 2009-10, According To Ao, The Purchase Made By

For Appellant: Shri Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir D. Yadav (Sr. AR)

entries (providing bogus bills for commission without genuine transaction of purchase & sales of goods), the AO, reopened the assessment of the assessee u/s 147 of the Act; and taking note that the assessee had shown to have transacted with the dealers (identified by the Sales Tax Department of Maharashtra), he directed the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transaction

INCOME TAX OFFICER 25(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SHEETAL EXPORTS , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2987/MUM/2022[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2987/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer-25(3)(1), बिधम/ Sheetal Exports 2Nd Floor, Room No. 233, 202 Triveni 21 Lajpatrai Vs. Kautilya Bhavan G. Block, Road, Vile Parle (W) Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400056 Bandra (E) Mumbai- 400051 स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abgfs0869L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Amit C. Zaveri & Dharmil Zaveri Revenue By: Shri Sanjeev Ranjan (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Action Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Directing The Ao To Restrict Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter “The Act”) To The Tune Of Rs. 2,67,00,986/- From 100% To 3% Of The Bogus Purchases Made Of Rs. 2,67,00,986/-.

For Appellant: Shri Amit C. Zaveri & DharmilFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ranjan (Sr. AR)
Section 68

bogus/accommodation entries, but since the AO has accepted the sales (turn-over) of trading shown by the assessee, the entire purchases shown by assessee to the tune of Rs.2,67,00,986/- cannot be disallowed because without purchases, there cannot be sales. So the Ld. CIT(A) has presumed that the assessee would have purchased the goods from the grey

REALSTONE EXPORTS LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 8(3)(3), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3444/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Shaktijit Dey, Jm

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Shri V.Vidhyadhar
Section 133(6)Section 14Section 142(1)Section 144Section 145Section 234

bogus/accommodation entries amounting to Rs.2,79,76,16,626/- that commission income of the assessee @ 1% of these transactions was 9 ITA No.3444/Mum/2014. M/s.Realstone Exports Limited. computed at Rs. 2,79,76,166/- which was added back to the taxable income of the assessee. 5. Upon assessee’s appeal, learned CIT(A) elaborately considered the issue and confirmed the action

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

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

ITA 7248/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

bogus/accommodation entries and not rendered any services, therefore, it could safely be concluded that the assessee had suppressed its profits in the garb of bogus expenses booked on the basis of accommodation entries. The ld. D.R submitted that as the assessee had consciously inflated the expenses with a clear intent to reduce its taxable income/enhance the loss, therefore

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

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

ITA 7247/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

bogus/accommodation entries and not rendered any services, therefore, it could safely be concluded that the assessee had suppressed its profits in the garb of bogus expenses booked on the basis of accommodation entries. The ld. D.R submitted that as the assessee had consciously inflated the expenses with a clear intent to reduce its taxable income/enhance the loss, therefore

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

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

ITA 7246/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

bogus/accommodation entries and not rendered any services, therefore, it could safely be concluded that the assessee had suppressed its profits in the garb of bogus expenses booked on the basis of accommodation entries. The ld. D.R submitted that as the assessee had consciously inflated the expenses with a clear intent to reduce its taxable income/enhance the loss, therefore

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

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

ITA 7245/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

bogus/accommodation entries and not rendered any services, therefore, it could safely be concluded that the assessee had suppressed its profits in the garb of bogus expenses booked on the basis of accommodation entries. The ld. D.R submitted that as the assessee had consciously inflated the expenses with a clear intent to reduce its taxable income/enhance the loss, therefore

DCIT 3(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

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

ITA 7249/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 7245 To 7249/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year:2007-08 To 2011-12) Dcit-3(3)(1), M/S Reliance General Room No.609, 6Th Floor, Insurance Company Ltd. बिधम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road 570, Rectifier House, Naigum Mumbai-400 020 Cross Road, Next To Royal Vs. Industrial Estate, Mumbai-400 031 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aabcr6747B (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Sanghvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, D.R
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

bogus/accommodation entries and not rendered any services, therefore, it could safely be concluded that the assessee had suppressed its profits in the garb of bogus expenses booked on the basis of accommodation entries. The ld. D.R submitted that as the assessee had consciously inflated the expenses with a clear intent to reduce its taxable income/enhance the loss, therefore

BIO-VET INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 25(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 3084/MUM/2009[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2017AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5327/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-99) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3084/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-99) M/S Bio-Vet Industries, Dcit – 25(1), बनाम/ Shantivilla, C-11, Pratyasha Kar V. Nr. St. Lawrence School, Bhavan, Devidas Lane, Bandra Kurla Complex, Borivali (W), Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 103. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aadfb 3600 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Asyharzain V.P. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 80l

entries wherein only bogus bills were issued by said Subhaksha Exports Limited and no delivery of material took place . The assessee did not accounted for purchases to the tune of Rs. 2,25,000/- in its books of accounts as also no payments were reflected in the books of the assessee towards as said purchases were made outside the books

M/S. BIO- VET INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT 25(1), MUMBAI

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

ITA 5327/MUM/2007[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2017AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5327/Mum/2007 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-99) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3084/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 1998-99) M/S Bio-Vet Industries, Dcit – 25(1), बनाम/ Shantivilla, C-11, Pratyasha Kar V. Nr. St. Lawrence School, Bhavan, Devidas Lane, Bandra Kurla Complex, Borivali (W), Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 103. Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aadfb 3600 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Asyharzain V.P. DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)Section 80l

entries wherein only bogus bills were issued by said Subhaksha Exports Limited and no delivery of material took place . The assessee did not accounted for purchases to the tune of Rs. 2,25,000/- in its books of accounts as also no payments were reflected in the books of the assessee towards as said purchases were made outside the books