9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 25% of the value of alleged purchases after categorically finding it to be bogus? - R/TAX APPEAL NO. 606 of 2018 With 607 of 2018 With 608 of 2018 With 609 of 2018 With 610 of 2018 With 611 of 2018 With 618 of 2018 With 619 of 2018 With 620 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 18-6-2018 - MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH AND MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE For the Appellant : MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) For the Respondent : None COMMON ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in Income Tax Appeal No.1693/2014 for A.Y. 2007-08 by which the learned ITAT has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the assesee M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Tax Appeal No.608/2018 with the following proposed question of law: Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts of the case in restricting the addition to 25% of the value of alleged purchases after categorically finding it to be bogus? Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned ITAT in Income Tax Appeal No.794/2013 for A.Y. 2009-10 by which the learned ITAT has partly allowed the said appeal preferred by the assesee M/s.Aashadeep Industries and has restricted the disallowance to 25% of the bogus purchases, the Revenue has preferred Tax Appeal No.609/2018 with the following proposed question of law: Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it to be bogus? Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned ITAT in Income Tax Appeal No.1694/2014 for A.Y. 2007-08 by which the learned ITAT has dismissed the said appeal preferred by the assesee M/s.Prakash Industries and has confirmed the order passed by the CIT(A) restricting disallowance to 25% of the total bogus purchases, the Revenue has preferred Tax Appeal No.618/2018 with the following proposed question of law: Whether the Appellate Tribunal has erred in law and on facts of the case in restricting the addition to 25% of the value of alleged purchases after categorically finding it to be bogus? Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and order passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... noted that in all these appeals, the learned CIT(A), in the case of respective assessees for respective Assessment Years, has restricted the disallowance to 25% of the total bogus purchases. However, according to the assessees, it should have been 5% of the total bogus purchases and therefore, the assessees had preferrd appeals before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal has confirmed the respective orders passed by the CIT(A) restricting disallowance to 25% of the total bogus purchases. It is true that according to the Revenue, 100% of the total bogus purchases ought to have been disallowed. However, the same is the subject-matter of the other appeals preferred by the Revenue which shall be dealt with hereinafter. As these three ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
