(i) Uniword Telecom Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (

92 TTJ 1126Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2005#7565 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also reported as

45 DTR 433

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 145(3)Section 148 Section 69C Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 151

Issues it is cited on

section 145 section 145(3)rejection of books of account reasoned order accommodation entry section 69c reason to believe section 133 income-tax officer section 69 unexplained investment genuineness of the transaction

Judgments citing (i) Uniword Telecom Ltd. v. Addl. CIT (

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. S S PULSES MANUFACTURING PVT LTD, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2384/DEL/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…2 dated 22/10/14. 1. 2. ITO Vs. Bhansali Trading Corporation ITA No. 253/JP/2012. 5.6 10% disallowance of bogus/unverifiable purchases has been upheld in following cases: (i) Uniword Telecom Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (45 DTR 433) (Delhi ITAT). (ii) ITO Vs. Sunsteel (92 TTJ 1126) (Ahmedabad ITAT). 5.7 In view of the foregoing discussion, the percentage of disallowance of bogus purchases/ accommodation entry must be based on the facts of case. The same cannot be generalized in every case. The decisions rendered in the cases of Sanjay Oil Cake Industries (supra) and Vijay Protein Ltd. (supra) are however distinguishable on…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR vs. SHANTA TECHNO PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

ITA 155/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 155/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…2012 dated 22/10/14. 2. ITO Vs. Bhansali Trading Corporation ITA No. 253/JP/2012. 5.6 10% disallowance of bogus/unverifiable purchases has been upheld in following cases: (i) Uniword Telecom Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (45 DTR 433) (Delhi ITAT). (ii) ITO Vs. Sunsteel (92 TTJ 1126) (Ahmedabad ITAT). 5.7 In view of the foregoing discussion, the percentage of disallowance of bogus purchases/ accommodation entry must be based on the facts of each case. The same cannot be generalized in every case. The decisions rendered in the cases of Sanjay Oil Cake Industries (supra) and Vijay Protein Ltd. (supra) are however distinguisha…

ITO-19(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. THANA RAM MANGI LAL CHOUDHARY, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2698/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-19(3)(1), Mumbai Thana Ram Mangi Lal Choudhary Vs 33/36, Prabhu Shree Ram Mandir, 4Th Kumbharwada, Maharashtra-400004. Pan: Afepc 1898 P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule Addl. CIT/ Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

…dated 22/10/14. 2. 2. ITO Vs. Bhansali Trading Corporation ITA No. 253/JP/2012. 6.6 10% disallowance of bogus/unverifiable purchases has been upheld in following cases: (i) Uniword Telecom Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (45 DTR 433) (Delhi ITAT). (ii) ITO Vs. Sunsteel (92 TTJ 1126) (Ahmedabad ITAT). 6.7 In view of the foregoing discussion, the percentage of disallowance of bogus purchases/ accommodation entry must be based on the facts of each case. The same cannot be generalized in every case. The decisions rendered in the cases of Sanjay Oil Cake Industries (supra) and Vijay Protein Ltd. (supra) are however distinguisha…

HARISONS STEEL LIMITED,WADA THANE vs. DY CIT 12(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 3957/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Mani JainFor Respondent: Biswanath Das

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…bad Tribunal upheld 10% of the purchase price as inflated amount where suppliers were found to be non-existent and did not respond to the notices issued by the Department Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of Uniword Telecom Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT (45 DTR 433) upheld the addition on account of unverifiable purchases to the extent of 10%. In the cited case, the assessee- company was found to be engaged in claiming Cenvat credit fraudulently on the basis of invoices issued by non-existing parties ("vendors") It arranged for bogus invoices from non-existent or fake vendors without really obtaining the cor…

HARISONS STEEL LTD,WADA THANE vs. DCIT 12(2)(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee vide ITA No

ITA 3943/MUM/2023[AY 2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Mani JainFor Respondent: Biswanath Das

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1 (1), , RAJKOT vs. M/S. DHRUV CRAFT MILL PVT. LTD., VILLAGE: - LILAPAR, TAL. & DIST. MORBI,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 207/RJT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 148

…lined to make ad hoc addition at the rate of 5% of such purchases in order to meet the end of justice and to stop the ongoing dispute. In holding so, we find support and guidance from the judgment of the ITAT Ahmedabad in case of ITO vs. Sun Steel reported in 92 TTJ 1126 wherein it was held as under. At the most it can be presumed that the assessee did not make purchases from the above parties but made from other unregistered dealer and got benefit of margin of purchases from unregistered dealer. We find that to that extent an estimation of profit can be made which will be fair and reasonable under the facts and…

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1 (1), , RAJKOT vs. M/S. DHRUV CRAFT MILL PVT. LTD., VILLAGE: - LILAPAR, TAL. & DIST. MORBI,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 206/RJT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 148

LATE SHRI BHIMSEN DARBARILAL ARORA,,SURAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, SURAT

In the result, ground no.4 raised by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1706/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1706/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Physical Court Hearing) Bhimsen Darbarilal Arora Through, Vs. The Acit, Circle-5, L/H. Rajat Bhimsen Arora, Surat. Smt. Mamta Bhimsen Arora, A-201, Madhulika Apartment, Bhatar Road, Surat. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acaps9230L

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…about the sales of finished goods (after value addition of Grey Cloth) and did not disbelieve the sales figures. It is settled legal position that there cannot be any sales without having corresponding purchases. It has been held in the case of Sun Steel Ltd. 92 TTJ 1126 that there cannot be sales without purchases, at the most purchases from other parties - only margin of profit added. In view of the facts & circumstances involved in this case, I considered view that instead of making 100% disallowance of ‘unverifiable purchase’, the AO should have restricted the disallowance on some percentage basis. The AO had…

SHRI SANDEEPKUMAR S. CHANDAK,,SURENDRANAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, S.K. WARD-1,, HIMATNAGAR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3024/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri L.P. Jain, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)

…lined to make the ad hoc addition at the rate of 5% of such purchases in order to meet the end of justice and to stop the ongoing dispute. In holding so, we find support and guidance from the judgment of ITAT Ahmedabad in case of ITO vs. Sun steel reported in 92 TTJ 1126 wherein it was held as under: “At the most it, can be presumed that the assessee did not make purchases from above parties but made from other unregistered dealer and got benefit of margin of purchases from unregistered dealer. We find that to that extent an estimation of profit can be made which will be fair and reasonable under the facts and ci…

TRUSHAR PARIMAL SHAH,,BHAVNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1(3),, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 268/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 268/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2013-14) बनाम/ Trushar Parimal Shah The Income Tax 354, Madhav Darshan Officer Vs. Waghawadi Road Ward-1(3) Bhavnagar-364 002 Bhavnagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Axwps5561M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Tushar P. Hemani, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Nilabra Dasgupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing 29/08/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 01/10/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P. Hemani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilabra Dasgupta, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ SMC ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 268/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2013-14) बनाम/ Trushar Parimal Shah The Income Tax 354, Madhav Darshan Officer Vs. Waghawadi Road Ward-1(3) Bhavnagar-364 002 Bhavnagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AXWPS5561M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri Tushar P. Hemani, AR ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by: Shri Nilabra Dasgupta, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date of Hearing 29/08/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /D…

M/S G. D. ENTERPRISE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-40, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, we dismiss both the appeal of the assessee as well of Revenue

ITA 585/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2012-13 M/S G.D. Enterprise V/S. Acit, Circle-40 1/H/1, Raja Janmenjoy 3, Government Place Road, Kolkata-700010 (West), Kolkat- [Pan No.Aacfg 4533 A] 700001 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri J.M. Thard, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sourav Kumar, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 14-01-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-03-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata’S Order Dated 31.12.2015, Passed In Case No.1046/Cit(A)-13/Kol/Cir-45/2014-15, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Ground Seeks To Reverse Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Treating Its Purchases Amounting To ₹3,39,04,027/- As Bogus In Assessment As Affirmed In Lower Appellate Proceedings. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Under:- “5. Decision 5.1 Appellant'S Submission & Facts Available On Record Is Carefully Considered. The Assessee Has Argued That It Had Made All Payments Through Account Payee Cheque & From Your Petitioner Site There Is No Mistake As Per Law & Income Tax Act. So The Disallowance Of Purchase Against Payment Through Account Payee Cheque Would Not Be False & It May Be Accepted

Section 143(3)

…unaccounted source of funds, thus addition of opening balance of Rs. 18,43,451/- is unjustified, The appellant relies on understated direct judicial decisions :- Addition u/s. 69C cannot be invoked in absence of the full proof evidence . i) ITO vs. Sunsteel 92 TTJ 1126 (Ahd-ITAT) ii) Nisraj Real Estate & Export(P) Ltd vs. ACIT 31 DTR 456 (JP-ITAT) (Trib) iii) ACIT vs. Kishan Lal Jewels (P) Ltd 147 TTJ 308(Del-ITAT) iv) Shubh Laxmi Exports vs. ITO 10 DTR 281 (Jp-ITA T) (Trib) Onus is the on the Revenue to prove the payment to invoke Sec.69C i) Himalaya Distributors vs. ITO 29 DTR 267 (Pune-ITAT) ii) M.P. Mal…

ITO 16(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. ASHWIN PURSHOTTAM BAJAJ, MUMBAI

In the result , we dismiss both the appeal of the assessee as well of Revenue

ITA 5207/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4736/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Shri Ashwin Purshotam The Ito – Ward 16(2)(1), बनाम/ Bajaj, Mumbai. V. C/O Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Chartered Accountant, 5, Jolly Bhawan No. 2, 7 New Marine Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aacpb7522J .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69C

…ome, thus the possibility of unexplained payment would not arise. In any case, Ld. A.O did not bring any evidence on record to justify any sort of unexplained payments made to the alleged unidentified parties, accordingly the addition u/s.69C is unjustified, (92 TTJ 1126 (Ahd), 31 DTR 456 (Jp), 147 TTJ 308 (Del), 10 DTR 281 (Jp); 1.3 The Ld. A.O had not rejected the appellant's books of accounts u/s.145(3) of the Act and having accepted the book results is not justified in invoking the provision of Sec 69C of the Act on incorrectly assuming that the appellant had incurred unexplained expenditure to source the pu…

ASHWIN PURSHOTAM BAJAJ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD- 16(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result , we dismiss both the appeal of the assessee as well of Revenue

ITA 4736/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

For Respondent: Shri Vikash Kumar Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69C

ITO 24(1)(4), MUMBAI vs. DEEPAK KHUSALDAS MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 3019/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3019/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Income Tax Officer – Shri Deepak Khusaldas बनाम/ 24(1)(4), Mehta, V. R. No. 502, Prop. Mehta Steel C-13, Syndicate, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, 201, Ganga, R.S. Marg, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Malad (East) Bandra (East), Mumbai –400 097. Mumbai – 400 051`. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabpm7200P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.P. KapadiaFor Respondent: Shri Vishwas Jadhav

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ogus purchases. In the support, the assessee relied on the following decisions :- 1. CIT v. leaders Valves Private Limited reported in 258 ITR 435(P & H HC) 2. J.R.Solvent Industries Private Limited v. ACIT 68 ITD 65(TM) , ITAT Chandigarh 3. ITO v. Sunsteel, 92 TTJ 1126, ITAT Ahmadabad Bench 4. Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. ACIT, 58 ITD 428, ITAT Ahmadabad ITA 3019/Mum/2014 10 5. Ramesh verma v. ITO, ITA No. 541/Ahd/2007, ITAT Ahmadabad 6. Shri Simit P. Sheth v. ITO, ITA 3238 & 3293/Ahd/2009, ITAT Ahmadabad Bench. Thus, it was prayed that the addition may be deleted. The ld. CIT(A) considered the submissions of the…

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-36(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SAHA AGENCY, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed and the Cross Objection of assessee is dismissed

ITA 2453/KOL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin Ansari, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri N. V. Vasudevan, JM & Shri M. Balaganesh, AM] I.T.A No.2453/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Income-tax Officer, Wd-36(3), Kolkata. Vs. M/s. Saha Agency (PAN: AAOFS4826L) (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 139/Kol/2013 In I.T.A No.2453/Kol/2013 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s. Saha Agency Vs. Income-tax Officer, Wd-36(3), Kolkata (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Date of hearing: 11.05.2016 Date of pronouncement: 20.05.2016 For the Appellant/Revenue: Md. Ghayas Uddin Ansari, JCIT, Sr. DR For the Assessee/Cross Objector: Shri S. M. Surana, Advoc…