9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 599X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act') for the A.Ys. 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12. 2. These 03 appeals are based on the identical facts, except variation in amounts, hence for the sake of the brevity, the same were heard together and are being disposed of, by this composite order and by taking into consideration facts and issue involved in ITA No.6546/M/2024 (AY: 2009-10) as a lead case. 3. The Assessee has claimed that it deals in ferrous and non- ferrous metals and during the year under consideration, made the purchases of Rs. 1,12,13,732/- through banking channels and respective purchase invoices and has established the purchases made, by filing relevant purchase invoices, copy of bank statements evidencing payment made through proper banking channels, highlighting the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld. Commissioner though affirmed the reopening proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, but restricted the addition from 12.5% to 4% of the bogus purchases by taking into consideration the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of Kamlesh Bhansali in ITA No. 1591/M/2020. In effect, the Ld. Commissioner deleted the addition of Rs. 9,41,167/-. 6. The revenue department being aggrieved is in appeal before this court and at outset has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-5 Vs. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd. in ITA No. 791/2021 decided on 03.03.2025, wherein the Hon'ble High Court restored the addition made by the assessing officer @100% of the bogus p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isdictional High Court, including in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 Vs Refrigerated Distribute Private Limited (ITA No. 1840/2018) decided on 05.03.2005, wherein the Assessing Officer estimated the gross profit @25%, which was confirmed by the then Ld. CIT(A). However, subsequently reduced by the tribunal to 10% and therefore, the Hon'ble High Court, by considering the peculiar fact that the issue involved relates to only estimation of profit; ultimately opined/decided that no substantial question of law can be said to have arisen in the instant case. 10. Thus this Court is in concurrence with the contention raised by Mr. Dhaval and the claim made by the Assessee that this case is factually dissimilar to the case dealt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
