Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.25 seconds)Section 263 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 147 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
N.K. Proteins Pvt. Ltd.,, Ahmedabad vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 16 November, 2022
24. Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant-
revenue, is justified in relying upon the decision of the Gujarat
High Court in the case of N.K. Industries Ltd. (supra). The Gujarat
High Court observed that estimating a certain percentage of the
bogus claim is against the principles of Sections 68 and 69C of the
Act, and if the purchases are bogus, then it is not incumbent upon
the Tribunal to restrict the disallowance only to confirm certain
percentage of such purchases. In the instant case before us, the
respondent-assessee has failed to prove the purchases including
source of expenditure by not offering any explanation in the course
of the re-assessment proceedings, thereby accepting the purchase
have not been proved and in the absence of any explanation of the
source of expenditure, provisions of Section 69C are clearly
attracted and, therefore, the AO was justified in making the
addition of Rs.20,06,80,150/-.
Section 144 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 68 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
N.K. Proteins Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 16 January, 2017
(i) Whether the Tribunal after accepting that this is a case of bogus
purchases, could have proceeded to determine profit rate without
confirming the disallowance of purchases, without considering the
provisions of Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and without
::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 03/03/2025 22:17:55 :::
2 46.ITXA.791.21.docx
considering the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of N.K.
Industries Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (2016) 72
taxmann.com 289 since the Special Leave Petition against the said
decision was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of N. K.
Protiens Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, on 16 January
2017, (2017) 84 taxmann.com 195 (SC) ?
Commissioner Of Income-Tax-I vs Simit P on 16 January, 2013
7. Concerning the ground relating to the addition of
Rs.20,06,80,150/- on account of bogus purchases from the parties
mentioned in the assessment order, the CIT(A) in paragraph 5.2.1
of his order upheld the reasoning and the approach of the AO in
making the additions. The CIT(A) further observed that the
activities of the accommodation entries in the trading community
are not unheard of and further stated that the investigation by the
Sales Tax Department concerning VAT violations cannot be lost
sight of more particularly since the names of the bogus sellers
supplied by the Sales Tax Department are appearing in the books of
respondent-assessee and, therefore, the link of involvement of the
respondent-assessee in getting bogus bills is established. However,
after giving the findings on the bogus purchases, the CIT (A),
without any further reasoning, straight away referred to the
decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Simit P.
Sheth1 and estimated 12.5.% of the bogus purchases as the
additions to be made instead of confirming entire bogus purchases.
The Principal Commissioner Of Income ... vs Mohammad Haji Adam And Co on 11 February, 2019
In our view, the Tribunal was not justified in relying upon
the decision in the case of Mohammad Haji Adam & Co. (supra) .
In that case, the assessee had participated in the assessment
proceedings, and CIT(A) compared the purchases and sales
statement, and there was a finding that the purchases cannot be
rejected since there was a correlation between purchases and sales.
The Coordinate Bench proceeded on this finding of fact recorded
by the authorities and dismissed the revenue's appeal on the
ground that no substantial question of law arises. The issue in the
present appeal is on failure of discharging onus by the respondent
as to purchases including the source of the purchases made by the
respondent-assessee and which source has not been explained by
the respondent-assessee.
Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 9 ... vs Mrs. Premlata Tekriwal on 15 July, 2022
25. Mr. Suresh Kumar learned counsel for the appellant-revenue
is justified in relying upon the decision in the case of Mrs. Premlata
Tekriwal (supra). In the said decision, a specific question was
raised on the provisions of Section 69C of the Act as to whether the
addition on account of bogus purchases should have been made of
the entire expenses or only a certain percentage of the bogus
purchases. The AO disallowed certain percentage of the bogus
purchases in the assessment order. This order was revised by the
PCIT under Section 263 of the Act and the PCIT held that the
entire expenses has to be disallowed as bogus purchases. On an
appeal against the order under Section 263 of the Act, the Tribunal
stated that only 2% of the bogus purchases may be added to the
total income. Being aggrieved by the Tribunal's order, the revenue
filed an appeal to the Calcutta High Court.