Search Results For: Vimal Punmiya


ACIT vs. Steel Line (India) (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: August 29, 2017 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: September 4, 2017 (Date of publication)
AY: 2009-10 to 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
Bogus Purchases: If the AO has not disputed the genuineness of sales and the quantitative details and the day to day stock register maintained by the assessee, a trader, he cannot make an addition in respect of peak balance of the bogus purchases. He can only determine the element of profit embedded in the bogus purchases. On facts, the addition is restricted to 2% of the bogus purchase

AO has not disputed the quantitative details and also day to day stock register maintained by the assessee. Assessee company being a trader of goods, AO not having doubted the genuineness of sales, could not have gone ahead and made addition in respect of peak balance on such purchases. Accordingly, CIT(A) concluded that issue boil down to find out the element of profit embedded in bogus purchases which the assessee would have made. When the corresponding sales have not been doubted and the quantitative details of purchases and sales vis-a-vis stock was available, we deem it appropriate considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case to restrict the addition to the extent of 2% of such bogus purchase. Accordingly, the order of both the lower authorities are modified and AO is directed to restrict the addition to the extent of 2% on such purchases.

ACIT vs. Sunland Metal Recycling (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: December 10, 2014 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: January 9, 2015 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 50C/ 271(1)(c): Even if s. 50C is applicable, computing capital gain de hors it does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c)

The Assessing Officer has not given any finding that the sale consideration disclosed by the assessee is not actual amount received as per the agreement of sale. The addition was made by invoking the deeming provisions of section 50C whereby the full value of consideration was adopted as per the valuation of the stamp duty authority for levy of stamp duty. The assessee has disclosed all relevant details as well as documents in support of its computation of Short term Capital Gain by taking into consideration the actual sale consideration received by the assessee. Consequently penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied

Top