Requre assessment order passed by ao in case of hawala purch
This query is : Resolved
Querist : Anonymous
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist)
29 December 2014
Dear All,
My client taking Turnkey Contacts of Installing Fire Fighting Systems.
Case is reopened for Hawala Bills. Can any one provide me the assessment order where any AO has passed order favoring assessee having business of taking contract.
Can anyone help me in complex situation ?
My client taking Turnkey Contacts of Installing Fire Fighting Systems.
Case is reopened for Hawala Bills. Can any one provide me the assessment order where any AO has passed order favoring assessee having business of taking contract.
Can anyone help me in complex situation ?
29 December 2014
On what grounds the notice is sent to you and what exactly it has been printed in the said notice?
Querist : Anonymous
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist)
29 December 2014
The case is reopened u/s 148, stating that the company has made purchases from Hawala Dealers.
Notice states as under:
It has come to the knowledge that the assessee company was involved in bogus purchases/ hawala transactions during the year. further as per information from sales tax authorities, the assessee company is stated to have accepted such bogus purchases/hawala transactions.
The assessee has booked bogus purchases from such dealers, thereby reduced its profit by inflating the expenses leading to the escapement of income chargeable to tax.
Notice states as under:
It has come to the knowledge that the assessee company was involved in bogus purchases/ hawala transactions during the year. further as per information from sales tax authorities, the assessee company is stated to have accepted such bogus purchases/hawala transactions.
The assessee has booked bogus purchases from such dealers, thereby reduced its profit by inflating the expenses leading to the escapement of income chargeable to tax.
29 December 2014
So now honestly say what exactly the assessee have done then only suitable advice can be given.
29 December 2014
The cases are very much aganist the ASSESSEEs under similar instances, where especiall assessee has acepted its bogus claim under VAT.
Querist : Anonymous
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist)
29 December 2014
The party has purchased materials through Broker.
29 December 2014
In reality how actual payments were made?
Querist : Anonymous
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist)
29 December 2014
payments were made by cheque
29 December 2014
you need to provide all the details regarding how much cheque payments you have made and how they are genuine has to be proved.
Moreover when department have stated sales tax refrence then its confirm they have all the proof reagrding your hawala trading so matter is serious and you must consult a good ca in this case to defend as matter is too musch serios
Moreover when department have stated sales tax refrence then its confirm they have all the proof reagrding your hawala trading so matter is serious and you must consult a good ca in this case to defend as matter is too musch serios
29 December 2014
More than CHEQUE payment....NOW YOU NEED TO PROVE THAT THE GOODS HAVE COME TO YOUR PREMISES.
30 December 2014
This must be the Issue of Maharashtra VAT & notice u/s 148 issued Income Tax dept.As because of the Hawala Issue in MAHA VAT Dept in 2011 this is become a Big nusiance in Maharashtra, we also had similar issues in our Group Company Office in Mumbai & Pune
No need to Worry this Big, First File your Objections & Once Objections are Disposed & Rejected by the ITO start submitting the Details. The ITO must have acted Adament & stubborn with you saying he will add 100% & such are the Orders by his Chief Comm Etc.. bla bla bla & such foolish things he must have said, Dont bother on such things, If the case is properly Represented be sure Dept cannot make an addition of more than 10 - 15%. I am Bangalore based else I would have helped you in your case but You need any expert help you can Quoting my name & reference call on one of my Expert Friends Mr Chandrakant on 9819408963 at Mumbai who is handling such cases, he will give you a Proper solution.he has been doing this cases for our Mumbai / Pune Office.
No need to Worry this Big, First File your Objections & Once Objections are Disposed & Rejected by the ITO start submitting the Details. The ITO must have acted Adament & stubborn with you saying he will add 100% & such are the Orders by his Chief Comm Etc.. bla bla bla & such foolish things he must have said, Dont bother on such things, If the case is properly Represented be sure Dept cannot make an addition of more than 10 - 15%. I am Bangalore based else I would have helped you in your case but You need any expert help you can Quoting my name & reference call on one of my Expert Friends Mr Chandrakant on 9819408963 at Mumbai who is handling such cases, he will give you a Proper solution.he has been doing this cases for our Mumbai / Pune Office.
30 December 2014
Mr Joglekar your Conception is very Wrong,
Acceptance by the Party ( Selling dealer ) with VAT Dept even in form of Affidavit or Deposition & Undertaking given to VAT Dept about issuing Bogus Invoices cannot effect the Purchasing dealer in Income tax. Such Declarations & Affidavits does not have any Substiantial evidentiary values in course of Income tax hearings. Refer the case of Jagdamba Trading Co v/s CIT at ITAT Jodhpur
Sir Contact my Friend at Mumbai on the above given Contact & he will Guide you
Sir also refer this crux of the
Guj HC Case
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Commissioner of Income-tax-I
v.
Nangalia Fabrics (P.) Ltd.*
AKIL KURESHI AND MS. SONIA GOKANI, JJ.
TAX APPEAL NO. 689 OF 2010†
APRIL 22, 2013
I. Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit [Unverifiable purchases] - Assessing Officer found that purchases made by assessee could not be verified as parties were untraceable - Accordingly, he made addition to assessee's income - However, Tribunal held that since purchases were supported by bills, entries were made in books of account and payment was made by cheque, addition should have to be deleted - Whether issue being based on facts, required no consideration - Held, yes [Para 4] [In favour of assessee]
II. Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure - Allowability of [Commission] - Whether where brokerage commission was paid through account payee cheques for sales canvassed by a party and also in consideration of collection recovered from purchaser, said commission payment could not be held to be bogus - Held, yes [Para 6] [In favour of assessee]
There are Many such cases. where Addition was deleted or considered at 5 - 10%. Max. Its only how you handle the case & how legally you represent, else ITO will abruptly add 100% & levy 100% penalty & put you in a Big Mess
Acceptance by the Party ( Selling dealer ) with VAT Dept even in form of Affidavit or Deposition & Undertaking given to VAT Dept about issuing Bogus Invoices cannot effect the Purchasing dealer in Income tax. Such Declarations & Affidavits does not have any Substiantial evidentiary values in course of Income tax hearings. Refer the case of Jagdamba Trading Co v/s CIT at ITAT Jodhpur
Sir Contact my Friend at Mumbai on the above given Contact & he will Guide you
Sir also refer this crux of the
Guj HC Case
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Commissioner of Income-tax-I
v.
Nangalia Fabrics (P.) Ltd.*
AKIL KURESHI AND MS. SONIA GOKANI, JJ.
TAX APPEAL NO. 689 OF 2010†
APRIL 22, 2013
I. Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit [Unverifiable purchases] - Assessing Officer found that purchases made by assessee could not be verified as parties were untraceable - Accordingly, he made addition to assessee's income - However, Tribunal held that since purchases were supported by bills, entries were made in books of account and payment was made by cheque, addition should have to be deleted - Whether issue being based on facts, required no consideration - Held, yes [Para 4] [In favour of assessee]
II. Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure - Allowability of [Commission] - Whether where brokerage commission was paid through account payee cheques for sales canvassed by a party and also in consideration of collection recovered from purchaser, said commission payment could not be held to be bogus - Held, yes [Para 6] [In favour of assessee]
There are Many such cases. where Addition was deleted or considered at 5 - 10%. Max. Its only how you handle the case & how legally you represent, else ITO will abruptly add 100% & levy 100% penalty & put you in a Big Mess
01 January 2015
Dr Sangita : Thank you for your referred case law on sec 68.
According to me, the present case is to prove that PURCHASES were NOT SHAM/BOGUS
The querist has written that 148 states: The assessee has booked bogus purchases from such dealers, thereby reduced its profit by inflating expenses leading to escapement of income chargable to tax
Assessee must be able to PROVE that the same were NOT sham/bogus. The question of CONSTRUCTIVE delivery will play a major role in this.
From the view point of "GOOD Governance", I respectfully submit that I disagree with your views.
According to me, the present case is to prove that PURCHASES were NOT SHAM/BOGUS
The querist has written that 148 states: The assessee has booked bogus purchases from such dealers, thereby reduced its profit by inflating expenses leading to escapement of income chargable to tax
Assessee must be able to PROVE that the same were NOT sham/bogus. The question of CONSTRUCTIVE delivery will play a major role in this.
From the view point of "GOOD Governance", I respectfully submit that I disagree with your views.
24 February 2015
Proving that this was a sham is the Onus of the Department, when the assessee shows all Bills & Payments by A/c Payee cheques. We have got cases of Our 7 Group Companies settled in Mumbai / Pune with 8 - 12.5% additions & now have gone in Appeal where we will get the additions scrapped down to anywhere between 0 - 5% Maximum. This are issues requiring strong & Proper Presentation & Representation with expert Knowledge on Taxation Practice of Abnormal issues like this
You need to be the querist or approved CAclub expert to take part in this query .
Click here to login now
Click here to login now
Similar Resolved Queries
Unanswered Queries
- Refund of AY 22-23
- HSN Details in IFF/GSTR-1 & in GSTR 9
- Tax on capital gains revoked us 54f
- Should I include march foreign salary received in April in my income for FY 2023-24?
- TDR receipts for agreement holder
- Inventory of finished goods
- Sale of property furniture sale
- Disallowance of Section 43B(h) to sez units
- GST APPLICABILITY ON POLLUTION CHECK SERVICE
- Applicability of Ind As to associate of associate
- Refund AY 2012-13 and 2013-14
- DIRECT TAX CODE 2025
- MODEL FILLED AUDIT REPORT FOR TRUSTS IN FORM 10B
- 115TD on cancellation of 12A 80G Registration
- MIS MATCH OF INVOICE NUMBER
- How to adjusted advances given or receipt
- Foreign vendor without PAN unable to to register due to non receipt of OTP on foreign number ?
- 133(6) DIN INVALID format error - ->WHERE TO REPLY 133(6) notice?
- Query for dubts
- CASE INTIMATION OF LIABILITY UNDER SECTION 73(5)(Rule 142(1A)
Trending Online Classes
CAclubindia
