Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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 / NCLT & Others
  • 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
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 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
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    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
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      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

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2024 (9) TMI 1056 - HC - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        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

        Court Upholds Limiting Disallowance to Profit Element in Alleged Bogus Purchases for 2009-10 and 2011-12 Tax Years. The Bombay HC upheld the ITAT's decision dismissing Revenue's appeals for AY 2009-10 and 2011-12 concerning alleged bogus purchases. The CIT(A) had ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                          Court Upholds Limiting Disallowance to Profit Element in Alleged Bogus Purchases for 2009-10 and 2011-12 Tax Years.

                          The Bombay HC upheld the ITAT's decision dismissing Revenue's appeals for AY 2009-10 and 2011-12 concerning alleged bogus purchases. The CIT(A) had restricted disallowance to 12.5% of the purchase amount, reflecting the profit element. The Court found no error in ITAT's affirmation of this approach, emphasizing the factual nature of the assessment and consistency with legal principles. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, affirming that only the profit element from alleged bogus purchases should be treated as income when actual sales are undisputed.




                          Issues:
                          1. Impugning an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissing two appeals for AY 2009-10 and 2011-12.
                          2. Reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on alleged bogus purchases.
                          3. Disallowance of entire purchase amount as bogus purchases by the Assessing Officer.
                          4. Appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and subsequent relief granted.
                          5. Appeal by Revenue before the ITAT questioning disallowance of expenditure and profit element taxation.
                          6. Justification of ITAT's decision and confirmation of CIT(A)'s order.
                          7. Determination of profit element in alleged bogus purchases and restriction of addition to 12.5%.

                          Analysis:
                          The High Court of Bombay heard an appeal challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissing two appeals for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2011-12. The case involved the reopening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act based on alleged bogus purchases made by the assessee. The Assessing Officer disallowed the entire purchase amount as bogus purchases after receiving information that suppliers had issued fake bills without actual sales. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the reopening of assessment but restricted the disallowance to the profit element embedded in the bogus purchases, estimated at 12.5%. The ITAT affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, leading to the appeal by Revenue before the High Court.

                          The High Court considered the arguments presented and found no fault in the ITAT's decision. It emphasized that the determination of whether the purchases were bogus or the parties involved were fake was a factual question. The assessee had provided various documents to support the purchases, including tax audit reports, financial statements, and payment records. Despite the Assessing Officer's rejection of this evidence, the sales made by the assessee were not disputed. The CIT(A) justified the addition of only 12.5% as profit income from the bogus purchases, a decision accepted by the ITAT. The Court reiterated that only the profit element from alleged bogus purchases could be treated as income when sales were not in question, as established in previous judgments. Therefore, the High Court upheld the ITAT's decision and dismissed the appeal by Revenue.

                          In conclusion, the High Court affirmed the ITAT's decision regarding the treatment of alleged bogus purchases, emphasizing the factual nature of the case and the importance of considering the profit element in such transactions. The Court found no grounds to interfere with the CIT(A)'s restriction of the disallowance to 12.5% of the total amount of bogus purchases, as it was based on a factual assessment of the situation and consistent with established legal principles.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found