| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 2222 (Mum-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 69
Where AO made addition @ 12.5% of alleged purchases shown by assessee without delivery of goods and CIT(A) after considering various judicial pronouncements on issue and facts and circumstances of case upheld order of AO after giving detailed finding, no reason was there to interfere with order of CIT(A).
|
Income from undisclosed sources - Addition under section 69 - Alleged bogus purchases - Addition @ 12.5% for embedded profit in transaction of bogus purchases
AO alleged that assessee had taken purchase bills without delivery of goods and accordingly, he added 12.5% of such alleged purchases in assessee's income.Held: CIT(A) after considering various judicial pronouncements on issue and facts and circumstances of case upheld order of AO after giving detailed finding. Nothing was placed so as to persuade Tribunal to deviate from findings recorded by CIT(A). Accordingly, no reason was there to interfere in order of CIT(A).
Followed:CIT v. Jansampark Advertising And Marketing (p) Ltd. [ITA No.525/2014, dt. 11-3-2015] : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 992 (Del-HC), CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab Pvt Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj) : 2013 TaxPub(DT) 1852 (Guj-HC), CIT v. Vir Bhan & Sons. (2005) 273 ITR, 206 (P&H) : 2005 TaxPub(DT) 426 (P&H-HC), CIT v. Precision Finance Pvt. Limited (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Cal-HC) : 1994 TaxPub(DT) 0368 (Cal-HC), Motipur Sugar Factory Pvt. Limited v. CIT (1974) 95 ITR 401, 409 (Pat-HC) : 1974 TaxPub(DT) 0389 (Pat-HC), Meru Impex v. Asstt. CIT [ITA No.2660/Mum./2017, dt. 1-11-2017] : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 4775 (Mum-Trib), Manish M Shah v. Asstt. CIT [ITA 2975/Mum/2015, dt. 14-3-2017] and Arun Shimpi v. ITO (2016) 48 CCH 195 (Mum) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 188 (Mum-Trib)
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : Against the assessee.
A.Y. : 2018-19
IN THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|