TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 1822
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ijit Dey, Judicial Member: The aforesaid appeal of the department and cross-objection of the assessee are against the order dated 19.05.2015, of the learned CIT(A)-32, Mumbai, for A.Y. 2009-10. 2. ITA No. 4549/Mum/2015 Assessment Year 2009-10 The grievance of the department in the present appeal is confined to the decision of the CIT(A) in restricting the addition made on account of alleged bo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee to the tune of Rs.4,50,08,383/- from twenty three parties are bogus purchases, since such parties, as per the investigation carried out by the Sales Tax Department were found to be hawala dealers providing accommodation entries. Accordingly, the AO completed assessment by adding back the alleged bogus purchases of Rs.4,50,08,383/-. Assessee challenged the addition in appeal preferred ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ork or the quantum of work carried out by the assessee. It is evident from record that the AO is not disputing the turnover of contract work executed by the assessee. Therefore, unless the assessee procured the materials/goods, though may not be from the declared sources but from some other sources, it would not have been possible on the part of the assessee to execute work awarded by MCGM. That b....