How many judgments cite PCIT v. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd.?

10 judgments on BharatTax cite PCIT v. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd. (474 ITR 175), spanning 2025 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does PCIT v. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 69C, Section 250, Section 147, Section 148, Section 133(6), Section 143(3).

PCIT v. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd.

474 ITR 175High Court2025#10641 most cited

What is PCIT v. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd. authority for?

When purchases are found to be entirely bogus and the assessee fails to prove their genuineness, the entire purchase amount can be added under section 69C, and estimation is not permissible.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd. · section 69C · unexplained expenditure · accommodation entry · bogus purchases · genuineness of transaction · 100% addition · estimation not permissible · hawala operators · section 148A

Sections most often in play

Section 69C Section 250 Section 147 Section 148 Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144B Section 148A

Issues it is cited on

section 69c section 148a(d)unexplained expenditure accommodation entry genuineness of the transaction section 133(6)section 144b search and seizure section 69 section 250 section 148 section 25

Judgments citing PCIT v. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd.

Income Tax Officer-17(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Anantam, Mumbai

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

ITA 8819/MUM/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri D.C. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA Nos.8818 & 8819/Mum/2025 (Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2017-18) Income Tax Officer, M/s. Anantam, 233, Income Tax Office, 76, Bombay Mutual Building, Vs. Kautilya Bhawan, BKC, Sir P.M. Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 051 Mumbai – 400 001 PAN:AAJFA7749R (Appellant) (Respondent) : Assessee by : Shri D.C. Jain, AR Respondent by : Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 04.03.2026 : 26.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, JM: The captioned appeals are filed by the…

Income Tax Officer-17(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Anantam, Mumbai

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

ITA 8818/MUM/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri D.C. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69C

Axis Infoline P Ltd, Delhi vs. PCIT-1, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2613/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2613/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 बनाम Axis Infoline P. Ltd., Principal Commissioner Of Income 196/16B, 2Nd Floor, Vs. Tax, Ramesh Market, East Of Kailash, Income Tax Office, Delhi-1. Nehru Nagar, South Delhi. Delhi. Pan No.Aadca9862C अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 263

…. PCIT based himself on the judgments in the case of N.K. Proteins of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, the SLP againstwhich was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court [84 taxmann.com 195 (SC)]. Ld. PCIT has also relied on the case of Kanak Impex reported in 474 ITR 175 (Bom.) In the Kanak Impex case (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP also. The Ld. PCIT came to the conclusion that 100% of the bogus purchases deserved to be disallowed and thereafter, he held the Ld. AO’s order to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. 1.2 Aggrieved with this the assessee has approached t…

Pratap Thakraji Solanki, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee's appeal is allowed

ITA 5227/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Smt.Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Jain/ Ms. KarunaFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Jumale- Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…the extent of GP rate declared at 11.54% on the impugned purchases. 4.3 In the light of above, ld. AR has argued at the reliance placed by the ld. AO on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd. [2025] 474 ITR 175 is misplaced. He has instead placed reliance on another decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT V Mohommed Haji Adam & Co. [2019]103 taxmann.com 459 wherein it has been held that even if the purchases are bogus, entire purchase amount cannot be added as the department had not disputed the assessee's sales and, theref…

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Sha Tarachand Fojmal and Company, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2541/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147

…ntending that the ld. CIT(A) erred in reducing the gross profit rate applied by the Assessing Officer from 5.54% to 3.41%. The learned Departmental Representative placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court in PCIT vs. Kanak Impex (India) Ltd. (474 ITR 175) and PCIT vs. Drisha Impex Pvt. Ltd., wherein the Hon'ble Court had upheld additions of 100% of the purchases held to be bogus. 6. We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the Revenue and perused the orders of the lower authorities. At the outset, we find that both the judicial precedents relied upon by the ld. DR are distinguisha…

Walmark Garment Compamy Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 14(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is hereby dismissed

ITA 6979/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt.Renu Jauhriwalmark Garment Company Vs. Income Tax Officer Pvt. Ltd. Ward 14(3)(1), Ch. No. 9 , Shop No. 18, Aayakar Bhavan, Porbandarwala Chawl, Mumbai-400020. Chiragnagar, L.B.S Marg, Ghatkopar West, Mumbai-400086. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacw9438P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar JhaFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary- Sr. AR

Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69C

…. Ltd. as bogus and making the addition of the entire amount 69C of the Act. 7.3 Further, reliance has been placed by ld. DR on the recent decisions of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the following cases: i. PCIT V. Kanak Impex (India ) Ltd. (2025) 474 ITR 175 wherein it has been held that when purchases were not proved, the entire amount had to be added u/s. 69C and the estimation was not permissible. ii. PCIT V. Drisha Impex (P) Ltd. (2025) 173 taxmann.com 571 (Bom) wherein Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court held that the assessee failed to discharge the primary ones of P a g e | 10 proving the purcha…

Subhash Badriprasad Shahu, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 4(3), Nagpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is partly allowed

ITA 421/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur07 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesubhash Badriprasad Shahu, Plot No.84, Near Annapurna Dall Mill, Bagad Ganj, Small Factory Area ……………. Appellant Nagpur 440 008. Maharashtra. Pan – Agqps9660N V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–4(3), Nagpur Assessee By :Shri. Abhay Agrawal.A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri. Abhay Agrawal.A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…an average as worked out to 6%. Therefore, the learned A.R’s contention that the transactions are genuine and the assessee ha already offered the same to tax. The learned Departmental Representative relied on the decision of PCIT v/s Kanak Impex (India) Ltd. 474 ITR 175 (Bom.), which was distinguished by the assessee’s A.R. referred at page 4&5 of additional paper book and the assessee has also filed an affidavit of the Vendor/ supplier of goods and the transporter has filed a response in lieu of notice under section 133(6) of the Act issued by the Assessing Officer at page 6 to 14 of the paper book. The content…

Income Tax Officer 41(3)(3), Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc vs. Pravinchandra B Dedhia, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3776/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain

Section 250Section 69C

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3776/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 ITO – 41(3)(3) Vs Pravinchandra B Dedhia 853, Kautilya Bhavan, 2nd Floor, A Wing, BKC, Mumbai – Panvai Nagar, 400051. Nalasopara (W), Mumba AAQPD3140A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Revenue by Shri Vikash Chandra, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing 04.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 23.09.2025 ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.: The present appeal has been filed by the revenue challenging the impugned order dt. 17.03.2025 passed under section 250 of the…

ITO, Mumbai vs. Shemon Jewels, Mumbai

ITA 2049/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 250Section 254(1)Section 37Section 74

…artment is represented by Ld. Sr DR, whereas there was representation on behalf of the assessee. 8. Ld. Sr. DR strongly supported the order of Ld. AO, placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Kanak Impex (India) Ltd. (2025) 474 ITR 175 (Bombay), wherein Hon’ble Court had held that addition of entire amount of bogus purchase from hawala operators in the hands of assessee was justified due to failure of assessee to prove said purchases. Accordingly, it is prayed that the addition made of 100% in the assessment order is correct and CIT(A)’s order to be set aside. 9. We have consi…

Income Tax Officer-19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Shemon Jewels, Mumbai

ITA 2048/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 250Section 254(1)Section 37Section 74