Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Validity of Reopening Assessment Upheld by ITAT, Stress on Tangible Evidence</h1> <h3>Hemang Hasmukhray Doshi (Prop of Minolta Chem), Mumbai Versus ITO-27 (1) (3), Mumbai</h3> Hemang Hasmukhray Doshi (Prop of Minolta Chem), Mumbai Versus ITO-27 (1) (3), Mumbai - TMI Issues Involved:1. Sustaining disallowance of 12.5% of bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 25,34,888.2. Validity of reopening the assessment based on information received from the Investigation Wing.3. Assessment of the genuineness of purchases from parties declared as hawala operators.Detailed Analysis:1. Sustaining Disallowance of 12.5% of Bogus Purchases:The primary issue raised by the assessee was the disallowance of 12.5% of the bogus purchases amounting to Rs. 25,34,888. The Assessing Officer (AO) had received credible information from the Investigation Wing that the assessee had taken accommodation bills for purchases from parties declared as hawala operators by the Maharashtra Sales Tax Department. These parties were found to be engaged in providing accommodation entries without actual delivery of goods. Despite the assessee's contention that payments were made through account payee cheques, the AO disallowed the purchases as the assessee failed to provide delivery challans, transportation details, or produce the parties for verification. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the AO's decision, and the ITAT confirmed the disallowance, stating that mere preparation of documents could not override the overwhelming evidence of non-existence of the suppliers.2. Validity of Reopening the Assessment:The AO reopened the assessment based on information from the DGIT Investigation (Mumbai) and Maharashtra Sales Tax Authority, indicating that the assessee was a beneficiary of bogus purchase bills from hawala operators. The information showed that these operators provided bogus sale bills without delivery of goods in exchange for a commission. The ITAT upheld the reopening of the assessment, citing the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT(A) Vs. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd., which stated that the AO needs a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment, based on tangible and material information. The ITAT found that the information received had a live link with the reason to believe that income had escaped assessment, justifying the reopening.3. Assessment of the Genuineness of Purchases:The AO conducted inquiries by issuing notices under section 133(6) of the Act to the parties, which were returned unserved. The assessee failed to produce the parties or provide necessary evidence such as delivery challans and transport bills. The Sales Tax Department's inquiry had already established that the parties were providing bogus accommodation entries. The ITAT noted that the assessee's inability to produce confirmation from the parties or evidence of transportation of goods indicated that the purchases were bogus. The ITAT referred to the Hon'ble Apex Court decisions in Sumati Dayal vs. CIT and CIT vs. Durga Prasad More, supporting the view that overwhelming evidence of non-existence of suppliers could not be ignored.The ITAT also considered the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of N K Industries vs. Dy. CIT, which upheld 100% disallowance of bogus purchases. However, since this was not an appeal by the Revenue, the ITAT did not disturb the relief already granted to the assessee by the AO and CIT(A).Conclusion:The ITAT dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, confirming the disallowance of 12.5% of the bogus purchases. The assessment was validly reopened based on credible information, and the purchases were found to be non-genuine due to the lack of evidence and the non-existence of the suppliers. The ITAT's decision was based on precedents from the Hon'ble Apex Court and High Courts, reinforcing the findings of the lower authorities.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found