← All Phrases

“bogus purchases”

DisallowancesSection 69CSection 69C9,532 judgments

The decision most relied on for bogus purchases is CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd. (355 ITR 290), cited in 712 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on bogus purchases

CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd.
355 ITR 290 · 2013 · High Court
712
citing judgments

If an assessee makes purchases from bogus parties, but the underlying goods are genuinely acquired and sold, only the profit margin embedded in such purchases, and not the entire value of the bogus purchases, should be added to the assessee's income.

Sanjay Oilcake Industries v. CIT
316 ITR 274 · 2009 · High Court
460
citing judgments

In cases of alleged bogus or unverifiable purchases, rather than disallowing the entire purchase value, a reasonable profit element or a proportionate percentage of the purchases should be added back to the assessee's income.

Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. Asst. CIT
58 ITD 428 · 1996 · ITAT
430
citing judgments

Where purchases are found to be non-genuine or fictitious, a reasonable disallowance of 25% of such purchases or the peak credit, whichever is higher, can be made. This is applied to address unexplained expenditure under Section 69C when actual goods are likely procured from the grey market.

CIT v. Odeon Builders Pvt. ltd.
418 ITR 315 · 2019 · Supreme Court
408
citing judgments

Income tax additions cannot be sustained merely on the basis of uncorroborated statements or allegations. The Revenue must bring on record sufficient material and allow the assessee to produce evidence to prove such additions.

Nikunj Eximp Enterprises v. CIT
216 Taxmann 171 · 2013 · High Court
325
citing judgments

Purchases may be treated as genuine even if the purchase parties are untraceable or not available for verification, as long as there is no specific evidence from the parties themselves denying the transactions or proving them to be bogus.

CIT v. Shyam R. Pawar
54 Taxmann.com 108 · 2015 · High Court
279
citing judgments

Transactions involving the purchase and sale of shares cannot be considered bogus where the assessee provides documentary evidence, unless the revenue brings substantial evidence on record to reject such proof. This principle is consistently applied in cases concerning claims of bogus long-term capital gains arising from penny stock transactions.

CIT v. Simit P. Seth
38 Taxmann.com 385 · 2013 · High Court
278
citing judgments

When an assessee obtains accommodation bills for purchases but the corresponding sales are genuine, the addition to income is limited to the gross profit margin embedded in such purchases. This principle acknowledges that the underlying sales were real, but profit was suppressed through bogus invoices.

CIT v. Vijay M. Mistry Construction Ltd.
355 ITR 498 · 2013 · High Court
252
citing judgments

In cases of alleged bogus or hawala purchases where the existence of transactions is not entirely denied, only the profit element embedded in such purchases, and not the entire purchase price, can be added to the assessee's income. The focus is on determining a reasonable profit percentage for such additions.

Judgments citing bogus purchases

R J Corporation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 42(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7715/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

effect that certain parties were engaged in issuing accommodation bills without actual delivery of goods and that the assessee was a beneficiary of such bogus purchase bills. On the basis of such information, the assessments for both years were reopened under section 147 of the Act after issuance of notices ... respective assessment orders passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 dated 20.11.2015, the additions were made on account of alleged bogus purchases by estimating profit at 12.5 percent. 4. Thereafter, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated in both the years and separate penalty orders dated

R J Corporation, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 42(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7714/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

effect that certain parties were engaged in issuing accommodation bills without actual delivery of goods and that the assessee was a beneficiary of such bogus purchase bills. On the basis of such information, the assessments for both years were reopened under section 147 of the Act after issuance of notices ... respective assessment orders passed under section 143(3) read with section 147 dated 20.11.2015, the additions were made on account of alleged bogus purchases by estimating profit at 12.5 percent. 4. Thereafter, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated in both the years and separate penalty orders dated

Nem Chand Jain, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 58(1), Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 312/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 312/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2019-20 Sh. Nem Chand Jain, Vs Income Tax Officer, F-88A, West Jawhar Park, Laxmi Circle-58(1), Nagar, Delhi-110092 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagpj8664B Assessee By: Sh. Rahul Kumar Jha, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.02.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2019-20 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1082890494(1) Dated 27.11.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Kumar Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 69C

Chand Jain 4. That being the case, both the parties vehemently reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the impugned bogus purchases disallowance. I wish to make it clear that there is no dispute in principle that the assessee is engaged in construction business all along wherein possibility ... Kohinoor Foods Ltd.; and (2025) 177 taxmann.com 836 (Delhi-trib.) DCIT Vs. Tirupati Matsup (P.) Ltd. have recently decided the instant issue of bogus purchases with divergent views as well. 5. Faced with these peculiar facts, it is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump

Singla Realters Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 23(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1583/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar Us & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pranshu Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 37Section 68

account of expenses u/s 37. ii) In confirming the addition of Rs 16,66,640/- on account of bogus purchases whereas the assessing officer had disallowed the amount u/s 37. iii) In confirming the addition of Rs 92,72,000/- incorrectly and unjustifiably made by the assessing officer

Kanti Lal Agrawal, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 33/RPR/2026[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Raipur10 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.33/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Kanti Lal Agrawal House No.101, Goyal Bandhu, Kurra, Dharsiwa, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Afepa0699G

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

suppliers' bank statements, and no ITR filings by suppliers. Hence, the A.O disallowed 25% of Rs.1,42,07,5007- i.e. Rs.35,51,875/- as bogus purchases and assessed total income at Rs.46,51,450/- and passed order u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 22.12.2018. 3. In this regard ... submitted that this issue of obtaining benefits through bogus purchase bills by rice millers is sub-judice before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court vide various cases filed before the said forum. She had submitted a list of the cases which are as follows: “1. Keshari Rice Industries

M/S. M M Brothers, Dhule vs. ITO, Ward 1, Dhule

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 477/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. VazeFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale (Virtual)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

against the income of Rs.2,13,120/- returned by the assessee. The above 3 assessed income includes addition of Rs.33,70,804/- towards bogus purchases and other additions of Rs.1,35,000/-. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 4. Subsequently ... dated 03.08.2017 directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the gross profit @ 2.25% and re-compute the profit instead of making addition on account of bogus purchases since Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that once the profit is estimated separate addition on account of bogus purchases cannot be made

Mr. Saurabh Anil Gandhi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 8437/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhailmr. Saurabh Anil Gandhi A-502 Chanakya Chs Ltd. Mahavir Nagar, Opp. Ekta Nagar, New Link Road, Kandivali West, Mumbai- 400067 ............... Appellant Pan: Aelpg7302J

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari a/wFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 35Section 80Section 80G

above questions you have stated that you never purchased goods for any amount and accommodation entries were obtained to book bogus purchases in consequence of which cash was received back from various parties / brokers. What happened to the cash so received? Ans: Sir, we return all the cash ... back all the donations received to all the donors within a short time as and when they were received, we used to book bogus purchases with accommodation entries without actual purchase of goods.” 13. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid statement, it was noted that the donations were received

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6661/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarincome Tax Officer – 17(1)(1), V/S. Anantam 233, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra बनाम 76, Bombay Mutual Fund, Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Sir Pm Road, Fort, Mumbai Mumbai 400051, Maharashtra – 400 001, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aajfa7749R Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri D.C. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan (Sr. DR)
Section 115BSection 147Section 69C

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of bogus purchase of Rs. 1,69,96,367/- u/s 69C of the Act under the provision of section 115BBE of the IT Act as the assessee ... Ld.CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer ignoring the fact that the assessee has made bogus purchases from M/s R.Kimpex (Prop: Manish Kapadia HUF) and M/s R.M. Textiles (Prop: Manish Kapadia) which were engaged in providing accommodation entries? 4) Whether on the facts

Shankar Rice Mill, Mahasamund vs. ITO, Mahasamund

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 628/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur09 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.628/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shankar Rice Mill Kh. No.161, Lakhagarh, Kishanpur B.O., Shanti Nagar, Pithora, Mahasamund Pan: Acffs3275C

For Appellant: Shri Bikram Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

that M/s. Shri Shyam Trading was a proprietary concern of Shri Shyam Sunder Namdeo, was found to be a bogus concern. The assessee made bogus purchases of Rs.66,50,000/- from bogus concern M/s.Shri Shyam Trading. It was observed by the A.O that the PAN of assessee was present ... Rs.67,03,285/-. 3. In this regard, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that this issue of obtaining benefits through bogus purchase bills by rice millers is sub-judice before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court vide various cases filed before the said forum. She had submitted a list

Hasmukh Ugarchand Gadhecha, HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(2)(2), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 591/AHD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.591/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Hasmukh Ugarchand The Ito बनाम/ Gadhecha, Huf Ward-5(2)(2) V/S. 3Rd Floor, Anjalee House Ahmedabad – 380 015 Cg Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaahg 7194 K (अपीलाथ$/ Appellant) (%& यथ$/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak R. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 26/12/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-2014. 2. The Assessee, In This Appeal, Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Hasmukh Ugarchand Gadhecha, Huf Vs. Ito Asstt.Year : 2013-14 2 “1. That The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Law & In The Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Order Of The Ao In Reopening Assessment U/S.147 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hargovind Singh, Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 68Section 69C

Gross Profit (GP) rate and made an addition of Rs.1,00,000/- into the income of the assessee and thus, the issue of alleged bogus purchases, was under the circumstances, was examined by the AO. Further, the said addition made on account of low GP rate was confirmed

K M Textiles Export Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 10(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6750/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

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

cash deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee and further deleting the addition of ₹91,45,458/- alleged to be on account of bogus purchases. The assessee, on the other hand, has challenged the sustenance of addition of ₹67,92,482/- under section 69C in respect of transactions with ... Insight Portal, the Assessing Officer formed a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, inter alia, on account of alleged bogus purchases and cash deposits during the demonetisation period. Accordingly, notice under section 148 was issued on 31.03.2024. 4. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that

Income Tax Officer - 10(1)(1), Mumbai vs. K M Textiles Exports Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6614/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

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

cash deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee and further deleting the addition of ₹91,45,458/- alleged to be on account of bogus purchases. The assessee, on the other hand, has challenged the sustenance of addition of ₹67,92,482/- under section 69C in respect of transactions with ... Insight Portal, the Assessing Officer formed a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment, inter alia, on account of alleged bogus purchases and cash deposits during the demonetisation period. Accordingly, notice under section 148 was issued on 31.03.2024. 4. During the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that

DCIT-15(1)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai vs. Moksh Alloy Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4025/MUM/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2018-19 Dcit-15(1)(1), Moksh Alloy Private Limited, Room No. 451, 1404, Tulip Regency Gardens, 4Th Floor, Vs. Sector 6, Aayakar Bhavan, Kharghar, Mumbai-400020. Navi Mumbai-410210. Pan : Aahcm4191J (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Ms. Krupa Gurav For Revenue : Shri Umashankar Prasad, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Ms. Krupa GuravFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 68Section 69C

deleting the additions made by the AO of Rs.83,66,39.954/ on account of bogus purchases, addition made by the AO of Rs. 10,60,34,000/- on account of unsecured loans and Rs. 89,12,635/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) by way of admitting the new evidences without ... deleting the additions made by the AO of Rs.83,66,39,954/- on account of bogus purchases on the basis of non- compliance from the respective parties, without proving the actual delivery, transportations, etc. with relevant supporting documentary evidences.." C. "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case

Sandeep Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO-Ward-1, Panipat/

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 191/DEL/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 69C

lower appellate discussion. 3. That being the case, both the parties vehemently reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the impugned bogus purchases disallowance. I wish to make it clear that there is no dispute in principle that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing ... taxmann.com 836 (Delhi-trib.) DCIT 2 | P a g e Vs. Tirupati Matsup (P.) Ltd. have recently decided the instant issue of bogus purchases with divergent views as well. 4. Faced with these peculiar facts, it is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lumpsum disallowance

Microtrans Infratech Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 17(1), Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 187/DEL/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2020-21 M/S. Microtrans Infratech Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Ward-17(1), B-351, Street No. 9, New Delhi Libaspur, Jeevan Park, Delhi Pan: Aahcm0726H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr

Section 147Section 69C

lower appellate discussion. 3. That being the case, both the parties vehemently reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the impugned bogus purchases disallowance. I wish to make it clear that there is no dispute in principle that the assessee is engaged in the business of supplying traffic ... Kohinoor Foods Ltd.; and (2025) 177 taxmann.com 836 (Delhi-trib.) DCIT Vs. Tirupati Matsup (P.) Ltd. have recently decided the instant issue of bogus purchases with divergent views as well. 4. Faced with these peculiar facts, it is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lumpsum

Mukesh Kumar Goyal, Neora, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 195/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.195/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Mukesh Kumar Goyal Prop. Of M/S. Maa Sharda Trading Co. Near Shyam Mandir, Bazar Para, Neora, Raipur 493 114 (C.G.) Pan: Ahapg4292R ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

being 25% of the purchases amounting to Rs.1,93,35,254/- by observing that the alleged purchased made by the assessee were bogus purchases. 3. In this regard, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that this issue of obtaining benefits through bogus purchase bills by rice millers is sub-judice before ... fact that the assessee herein is a rice miller and that as alleged by the Department he had obtained the benefit of bogus purchase bills from various agents and hence, the bogus purchase amount @ Rs.25% was added to the total income of the assessee. In this regard

DCIT, Circle -2(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Prahlad Nagar vs. Pancham Developers, Chandkheda

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

ITA 1202/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years: 2017-18

Section 136Section 143(3)

purchases made from the four parties were bogus, had directed the AO to make addition for only the gross profit element embedded in the bogus purchases. 4. Now the Revenue is now in appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal: 1. “Whether ... from those four parties were bogus. Under the circumstances, he should have confirmed the entire addition of Rs.3,50,55,146/- on account of bogus purchase made from the four parties. The ld. SR-DR contended that the direction of the Ld. CIT(A) to make addition for the profit

Income Tax Officer, Civic Centre vs. Mahesh Kumar Aggarwal, Delhi

In the result the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6242/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Sh.Sudhir Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2021-22 Income Tax Officer Vs. Mahesh Kumar Aggarwal 19/176 Near Usha Mata Mandir Old Rohtak Road , North West Delhi 110035 Pan No. Adupa7276 K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 145(3)

department. The AO should have conducted more in depth investigation to reach the conclusion that the assessee is involved in the bogus purchases method to reduce his income. Various judicial pronouncements have already settled the issue of bogus purchase. a. CIT VIs Anju Jindal 387 ITR 418( Punjab and Haryana ... books of account." 2.3- Hence the ground of appeal filed by the appellant is allowed as the AO could not substantiate the addition of bogus purchases and application of NP on estimate basis without any justification and application…….” 6. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC the Revenue

Amit Anand, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-36(1), Delhi

ITA 3980/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahayasstt. Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Jain, Adv. & CA Gupreet SinghFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 145Section 147Section 44ASection 69A

deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restrict the disallowance to @10% of purchases as against the entire purchases disallowed as bogus purchases by the Assessing Officer. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 4. The instant assesseee’s appeal is party allowed in the aforesaid terms. Order

Income Tax Officer, Aaykar Bhawan vs. Shiv Shankar Rice Mills, Gogripur Road

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4630/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Krinwant Sahay[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

circumstances of the case the Ld. CTT(A) was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs.8,28.42.938/- made on account of bogus purchases and sales of Rs.3,19,75,000/-and Rs.5.08,67.938/- respectively as the assessee failed to prove the physical movements of goods? 2. Whether ... sales. Appellant gets partial relief to the extent. 5.9 Now coming into the impugned addition of remaining Rs.3,19,75,000/-on account of bogus purchase made by the appellant u/s 68 of the Act being unverified from the alleged bogus parties. As mentioned above, appellant has contended that