AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 1180
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the Revenue was required to state his position. He has not brought out any material to suggest that the captioned appeal is protected by any of the circumstances prescribed in Para-8 of the Circular dated 10/12/2015 (supra) and as a consequence such appeal is liable to be treated as withdrawn/not pressed. The relevant portion of the circular dated 10/12/2015 (supra) is reproduced below:- "3. Henceforth appeals/SLPs shall not be filed in cases where the tax effect does not exceed the monetary limits given hereunder:- Sl. No. Appeals in Income-tax matters Monetary Limits (In Rs.) 1. Before Appellate Tribunal 10,00,000 2. Before High Court 20,00,000 3. Before Supreme Court 25,00,000 ................................................................................................................................. 4. For this purpose, "tax effect" means the difference between the tax on the total income assessed and the tax that would have been chargeable had such total income been reduced by the amount of income in respect of the issues against which appeal is intended to be filed (hereinafter referred to as "disputed issues"). Ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d 10/12/2015(supra). 5. In the result, by applying the CBDT Circular dated 10/12/2015(supra), the captioned appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as withdrawn/not pressed. ITA NO. 1817/MUM/2015 (Assessee's appeal) :- 2. The first ground is disallowance of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 14A and second ground is addition on account of bogus purchase of Rs. 7,92,220/-. 3. The assessee has claimed long term capital gains on sale of investments of Rs. 1,06,000/- as exempt on tax. In response to a query raised the A.O. as to why the expenses incurred and claimed in respect of exempt income should not be disallowed as per section 14A r.w.r. 8D. The assessee contended that these investments have been made from its own capital and reserves and it has not incurred any expenditure to earn such tax free income. The A.O. did not convince with the above explanation and he worked out the expenses attributable to exempt income comes to Rs. 23,685/-. Whereas the A.O. himself disallowed Rs. 5,265/-, therefore, the A.O. restricted the disallowance of Rs. 18,420/-. The matter carried to CIT(A) and CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. The learned AR submitted that the assessee has made inv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... vs 316 ITR 274. The learned AR submitted that the assessee company has furnished copies of invoice, delivery challan, purchase order, copy of bank statement and account confirmation from the said party. Therefore, no addition should be made. He relied upon the decision of M.K. Brothers 163 ITR 249, CIT vs 250 ITR 476, CIT vs Nangalia Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. 220 Taxman 17 (Guj). 9. We have heard the rival contention of both the parties. We find that in this case the assessee is a manufacturer of process of plant & machinery and generation of wind power and trading in steel goods. We find that in the case of purchaser, the assessee might have purchase this goods from some third party but some have been utilized in his factory payment have been made by way of payment terms. Therefore looking to this background, we find that the similar addition has been dealt by the Tribunal and various High Courts and Supreme Court had held that where the purchase were bogus or where the parties from whom purchase is bogus. Therefore relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs Simit Sheth (2013) 38 Taxmann.com 385 (Guj), Hon'ble Court was seized with a similar issue wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Mumbai Bench of ITAT in the case of Madhukant B. Gandhi in ITA No. 1950/Mum/2009 dated 23-02-2010, in support of the without prejudice grounds raised by the appellant and the relevant part of the above cited decision is reproduced herein below: "After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record we find from the trading and Profit and Loss Account of the assessee for the year ended 31-03-2005 relevant to the assessment year under consideration, copy place at page 18 of the paper book, that the opening stock and closing stock was shown at Rs. 3.55 lakh and Rs. 12.37 lakh respectively. Purchases worth Rs. 67.53 lakh were made against which the sales of Rs. 66.45 lakh were reflected. Page 52 onwards is a quantitative tally of the opening stock, purchase, sale and closing stock. When we consider the quantum of the purchases held by the AO to be bogus vis-à-vis the total quantity of sales and closing stock, it becomes clear that some goods were in fact purchases by the assessee which were subsequently sold, as but for the inclusion of such quantity purchased the sale of the quantity declared is not possible. At the same the Assessing Officer a....