BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

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

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai27Delhi24Kolkata6Surat4Raipur3Jaipur1Indore1Ahmedabad1

Key Topics

Section 147105Section 143(3)90Section 14872Addition to Income61Section 6858Section 10(38)53Section 69C21Disallowance21Penny Stock20Reassessment

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

SHRI RAVJIBHAI BECHARBHAI DHAMELIYA,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1(1), SURAT

In the result, assessee`s appeal for both the assessment years, that is,

Showing 1–20 of 67 · Page 1 of 4

19
Exemption19
Reopening of Assessment18
ITA 239/SRT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri P. M. Jagasheth, CA and Shri Sapnesh Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jaikaran, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151(1)

bogus purchase bills, therefore reassessment proceedings initiated by the assessing officer u/s 147/148 is valid for both the assessment years, 2010-11 and 2011-12. 18. We heard both sides in detail and also perused the records of the case including the paper book filed by the assesses running in to 223 pages for assessment year

SHRI RAVJIBHAI B DHAMELIYA,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, assessee`s appeal for both the assessment years, that is,

ITA 124/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri P. M. Jagasheth, CA and Shri Sapnesh Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jaikaran, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151(1)

bogus purchase bills, therefore reassessment proceedings initiated by the assessing officer u/s 147/148 is valid for both the assessment years, 2010-11 and 2011-12. 18. We heard both sides in detail and also perused the records of the case including the paper book filed by the assesses running in to 223 pages for assessment year

ACIT, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT vs. SHRI RAVJIBHAI BECHARBHAI DHAMELIYA, SURAT

In the result, assessee`s appeal for both the assessment years, that is,

ITA 122/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri P. M. Jagasheth, CA and Shri Sapnesh Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jaikaran, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151(1)

bogus purchase bills, therefore reassessment proceedings initiated by the assessing officer u/s 147/148 is valid for both the assessment years, 2010-11 and 2011-12. 18. We heard both sides in detail and also perused the records of the case including the paper book filed by the assesses running in to 223 pages for assessment year

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT vs. SHRI RAVJIBHAI BECHARBHAI DHAMELIYA,, SURAT

In the result, assessee`s appeal for both the assessment years, that is,

ITA 304/SRT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri P. M. Jagasheth, CA and Shri Sapnesh Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jaikaran, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151(1)

bogus purchase bills, therefore reassessment proceedings initiated by the assessing officer u/s 147/148 is valid for both the assessment years, 2010-11 and 2011-12. 18. We heard both sides in detail and also perused the records of the case including the paper book filed by the assesses running in to 223 pages for assessment year

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

GARG ACRYLICS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in ITA

ITA 5871/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mithun Shete, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

bogus/accommodation entries provided sufficient basis in law to the Assessing Officer to act upon such I.T.As. No.3456/D/19, 5870, 5871/D/18 8 prima facie information. It was submitted that the information received pointing out escapement of income were relevant and need not be pin-point accurate or complete in all respect at the stage of issuance of notice. It was thus submitted

GARG ACRYLICS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in ITA

ITA 5870/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mithun Shete, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

bogus/accommodation entries provided sufficient basis in law to the Assessing Officer to act upon such I.T.As. No.3456/D/19, 5870, 5871/D/18 8 prima facie information. It was submitted that the information received pointing out escapement of income were relevant and need not be pin-point accurate or complete in all respect at the stage of issuance of notice. It was thus submitted

GARG ACRYLICS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE- 4, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in ITA

ITA 3456/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mithun Shete, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

bogus/accommodation entries provided sufficient basis in law to the Assessing Officer to act upon such I.T.As. No.3456/D/19, 5870, 5871/D/18 8 prima facie information. It was submitted that the information received pointing out escapement of income were relevant and need not be pin-point accurate or complete in all respect at the stage of issuance of notice. It was thus submitted

SHRI SUNDER DAS SONKIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

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

ITA 1383/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1383/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sunder Das Sonkia, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. Sonkia Bhawan, Sms, Highway, Ward-1(2), Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Akhps 7413 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 09/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.O., Cuke Shri Sunder Das Sonkhiya, Vs. Ward-1(2), Prop.- M/S Naveen Jewellers, Jaipur. Sonkhiya Bhawan, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur. Pan No.: Akhps 7413 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeal Filed By The Assessee & The Cross Appeal Filed By The Revenue Arise Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 08/11/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee & The Revenue Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT)
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

entry of Rs. 11,60,43,373/- in the nature of bogus purchases from four companies. The A.O. has not examined the information received by him to verify whether assessee has made any purchases from these parties and whether the same is reflected in the accounts or not. The reasons recorded are vague, all consequent proceeding are also illegal

A R UDYOG,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD 46(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 1166/KOL/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Oct 2025AY 2011-2012
Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 68

bogus purchases, the\naddition u/s 69C of the Act is liable to be made. This is for the reason\nthat section 69C of the Act is an enabling provision and if only the profit\nelement is estimated instead of the rest of the amount, then it is\ntantamount to rest of the amount of purchases deemed to have been\nallowed

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

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

CHAMPION BUILDER PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WARD-1(3), GURGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly

ITA 462/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.462 & 463/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 68

bogus/accommodation entries provided by certain individuals/ companies. The name of the assessee figures as one of the beneficiaries of these alleged bogus transactions given by the Directorate after making the necessary enquiries. In the said information, it has been inter-alia reported as under: "Entries are broadly taken for two purposes: 1. To plough back unaccounted black money

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), KOLKATA vs. A J CAST ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED, HOWRAH

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and ground as raised\nunder Rule 27 is allowed

ITA 1685/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2026AY 2011-12
Section 132(1)Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

bogus purchases. The assessee has\nalso filed petition under Rule 27 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal\nRules, 1963 challenging the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act on\nthe ground raised in Rule 27 which is extracted below:\n“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Leamed Assessing\nOfficer has erred

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), 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 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