Avail 20% discount on updated CA lectures for Dec 21 .Use Code RESULT20 !! Call : 088803-20003

ICICI

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

ITO, WARD- 22(2)(1), MUMBAI vs KUMAR HASMUKH RUPARELIA, MUMBAI

LinkedIn


Court :
ITAT Mumbai

Brief :
This is an appeal by the revenue wherein the revenue is aggrieved that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short learned CIT(A)] has reduced the addition for bogus purchase of Rs. 5,70,985/- done @ 25% by Assessing Officer by sustaining only 12.5%.

Citation :
I.T.A. No. 2256/Mum/2019

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“SMC” Bench, Mumbai
Shri Shamim Yahya (AM)

I.T.A. No. 2256/Mum/2019 (Assessment Year 2010-11)

ITO-22(2)(1)
Mumbai
(Appellant)

Vs.

Shri Kumar Hasmukh
Ruparelia
13, Harivallabh CHS, J.K.
Mehta Road, Green Street
Santacruz West
Mumbai-400 054.
PAN : AACPR2188N
(Respondent)

Assessee by None
Department by Shri Kailash Gaikwad
Date of Hearing 13.10.2020
Date of Pronouncement 14.10.2020

O R D E R

This is an appeal by the revenue wherein the revenue is aggrieved that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short learned CIT(A)] has reduced the addition for bogus purchase of Rs. 5,70,985/- done @ 25% by Assessing Officer by sustaining only 12.5%.

2. The assessee in this case is engaged into the business of building material supplier. The assessment was reopened upon information from sales tax department that assessee has made Rs. 22,83,941/- purchases from bogus dealers. The Assessing Officer made 25% addition of the bogus purchase for Rs. 5,70,985/-.

3. Upon assessee's appeal learned CIT-A has noted that the sales has not been doubted. Accordingly placing reliance upon several case laws and up on the facts of the case he sustained 12.5% disallowance out of the bogus purchases.

To know more in details find the attachment file
 

 

Guest
on 28 November 2020
Published in Income Tax
Views : 27
downloaded 9 times
Report Abuse

LinkedIn







Trending Tags