| |
| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 3741 (Mum-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 69
Where Tribunal for assessment year 2010-11, on same facts in assessee's own case, directed that addition should be restricted to 6.5% of bogus purchases and thereafter in Miscellaneous Application, Tribunal took note of assessee's payment of 4% MVAT and thereafter, it directed that addition should be restricted to 2.5%, thus, matter was remanded back to AO with direction to examine veracity of MVAT paid and restrict the addition accordingly.
|
Income from undisclosed sources - Bogus purchases - Consideration of fact towards payment of VAT made by assessee before Computing quantum of addition -
Issue was as regards validity of order of CIT(A) wherein, addition on account of bogus purchases was restricted to extent of 15% as against 100% done by AO. Held: Tribunal for assessment year 2010-11, on same facts in assessee's own case, directed that addition should be restricted to 6.5% of bogus purchases. Thereafter in Miscellaneous Application, Tribunal took note of assessee's payment of 4% MVAT and thereafter it directed that addition should be restricted to 2.5%. No case was made out of that decision nor Tribunal's order was reversed by Jurisdictional High Court. Thus, following the same, AO was directed to examine veracity of these MVAT paid @ 4% by assessee. If same were found in order, addition should be restricted to 2.5% of purchases.
REFERRED : CIT v. Simit P Sheth (2013) 38 taxmann.com 385 (Guj) : 2013 TaxPub(DT) 2115 (Guj-HC) CIT v. M/s. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises (P) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 619 (Bom) : 2015 TaxPub(DT) 1855 (Bom-HC) CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab (P) Ltd. 2013 TaxPub(DT) 1852 (Guj-HC) M/s. Sanket Steel Traders v. ITO 2011 TaxPub(DT) 1140 (Ahd-Trib) Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner 1996 TaxPub(DT) 0829 (Ahd-Trib)
FAVOUR : Matter remanded
A.Y. : 2008-09 to 2011-12
IN THE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|