2017 (1) TMI 1798

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Omi Ningshen, DR. ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : This appeal filed by the assessee on 12.5.2015 is against the order of the CIT (A)-17, Mumbai dated 20.2.2012 for the assessment year 2010-2011. 2. In this appeal, the only issue raised by the assessee relates to the bogus purchases of Rs. 53.16 lakhs (rounded off) involving the tainted suppliers qua the Sales Tax Department and the addition .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ntire purchases giving no sustainable reasons for the non-compliance of the said decisions. 4. On the other hand, Ld DR for the Revenue relied on the orders of the Revenue Authorities. 5. After hearing both the parties, we find, the assessee's Net Profits (NP) over the years vary from 2% to 2.35% and the VAT rate applicable is 4%. Considering the above factual matrix of the present case, we are .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... lleged purchases of materials is done without bills. Accordingly, we confirm the addition to the extent of 7% of the said purchases of Rs. 53.16 lakhs. Addition should be restricted. Accordingly, AO is directed. Thus, the ground is partly allowed. 6. Regarding the addition on account of commission of Rs. 53,166/-, it is the argument of the Ld Counsel for the assessee that the CIT (A) enhanced ass .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X