Back
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (MUMBAI BENCH)
Anikesh Banerjee, J, Om Prakash Kant, Accountant Member
ITO 41(1)(1), Mumbai – Appellant
Versus
Anil Transport Service – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ao added full bogus purchases based on third-party statements from search. (Para 2) |
| 2. dr supports addition; ar contests lack of corroboration, banking proof. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. cit(a) restricts to 15% gp; sales acceptance implies purchases; precedents applied. (Para 5) |
| 4. revenue appeal and co dismissed; cit(a) order upheld. (Para 6) |
ORDER
Per: Anikesh Banerjee (JM):
The instant appeal of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee filed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [for brevity the “Ld. CIT(A)”], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2009-10, date of order 30.06.2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Ld. Income Tax Officer Ward 15(1)(3), Mumbai (for brevity the ‘Ld. AO’) order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, date of order 27.03.2014.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm which filed its return of income declaring a total income of Rs.19,78,876/-. During the year under consideration, the assessee reported total sales of Rs.4,53,79,314/- and purchases of Rs.3,57,03,898/-. The Ld. AO received information from the office of the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
