9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rchases - The order of CIT (Appeals) was challenged before the Tribunal vide its order dated 03rd May, 2017, dismissed the same. It was held that without purchasing materials and goods, it would not have been possible on the part of the assessee to execute the contract work with the MCGM, which is a Government Authority. Also held that the A.O. had not disputed the turnover of the contract work executed by the assessee and that unless the assessee procured the materials and goods, if not from the declared sources but from some other sources, it would not be possible on the part of the assessee to execute work awarded by MCGM. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the entire purchase made by the assessee could not be added back as income, bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of N K Proteins by Hon ble Ahmedabad High Court, further affirmed by Hon ble Supreme Court, as mentioned at ground No. 1 above, wherein Hon ble High Court, relying on the findings of the Hon ble ITAT, Ahmedabad, that the suppliers are bogus, has given a finding that once the suppliers are held bogus, then it is not correct to tax only 25% of the bogus claims? This is further supported by the fact that in this case also, the AO has categorically and conclusively held that the parties from whom the purchases are shown to be made are bogus purchases as the concerns are providing bogus bills and this finding of the AO has been further strengthened by the findings of the higher appellate authority which is never controverted by Hon ble ITAT? ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.4,50,08,383/-, which seemed to be accommodation entries. An order under Section 143(3) r/w Section 147 was passed on 26th March, 2014, making an entire addition of Rs.4,50,08,383/- as bogus purchase under Section 69C of the Act, thereby determining the assessee s income at Rs.5,43,80,670/-. 4. An appeal was preferred before the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals), who allowed the appeal partly vide its order dated 19th May, 2015. The Appellate Authority held that payments made by the assessee were through banking channels and that there was no evidence to prove that the cash had flowed back to the appellant. Purchase invoices and ledger statements also appear to have been produced before the Appellate Authority. It was held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
