← 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

DCIT, Circle - 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. B Chokshi Chem Pvt Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 335/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 147

GPCL). During the search action, certain incriminating material were found from which the Investigation Wing observed that the said GPCL was indulged in bogus purchases for the purpose of reducing its tax liability. It was found that some of the purchases were made by the GPCL from the assessee- company ... also. During the assessment proceedings, the additions were made in the income of the GPCL by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of bogus purchases made from the assessee. Since the addition was made on account of bogus purchases, therefore, the AO was of the belief that the assessee

DCIT, Circle - 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. B Chokshi Chem Pvt Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 334/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 147

GPCL). During the search action, certain incriminating material were found from which the Investigation Wing observed that the said GPCL was indulged in bogus purchases for the purpose of reducing its tax liability. It was found that some of the purchases were made by the GPCL from the assessee- company ... also. During the assessment proceedings, the additions were made in the income of the GPCL by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of bogus purchases made from the assessee. Since the addition was made on account of bogus purchases, therefore, the AO was of the belief that the assessee

DCIT, Circle - 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. B Chokshi Chem Pvt Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 333/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 147

GPCL). During the search action, certain incriminating material were found from which the Investigation Wing observed that the said GPCL was indulged in bogus purchases for the purpose of reducing its tax liability. It was found that some of the purchases were made by the GPCL from the assessee- company ... also. During the assessment proceedings, the additions were made in the income of the GPCL by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of bogus purchases made from the assessee. Since the addition was made on account of bogus purchases, therefore, the AO was of the belief that the assessee

DCIT, Circle- 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. B Chokshi Chem Pvt Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 332/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 147

GPCL). During the search action, certain incriminating material were found from which the Investigation Wing observed that the said GPCL was indulged in bogus purchases for the purpose of reducing its tax liability. It was found that some of the purchases were made by the GPCL from the assessee- company ... also. During the assessment proceedings, the additions were made in the income of the GPCL by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of bogus purchases made from the assessee. Since the addition was made on account of bogus purchases, therefore, the AO was of the belief that the assessee

Vetcha Nageshbabu, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 2308/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Prathik P, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT-DR
Section 133(6)

ledger extracts of the said suppliers but the AO without considering the said documents had treated the said purchases effected from the suppliers as bogus purchases and denied the same. The assessee also raised this plea before the Ld.CIT(A) but unfortunately the assessee had not appeared before the Ld.CIT

Ilesh Jitendra Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4386/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ilesh Jitendra Shah, Ito Ward 2(3), H-401, Shalom Gove, Plantaria Quereshi Mansion, Ghokhale Complex, Near Flyover Bridge, Vs. Road, Naupada, Bhaynder (W), Thane-401101 Thane (W)-400602. Pan No. Alxps 6180 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Satish ModyFor Respondent: Mr. B. Laxmi Kanth, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 148

evidence and merely relies on book entries then the entire ce and merely relies on book entries then the entire expenditure pertaining to such bogus purchases can be disallowed expenditure pertaining to such bogus purchases can be disallowed expenditure pertaining to such bogus purchases can be disallowed under Section ... communicated to the served and this fact was communicated to the served and this fact was communicated to the assessee, (ii) the bogus the bogus purchase parties confirmed the fact of no purchase parties confirmed the fact of no business activity and only issue of bills against ce business activity

Ankit Gems Private Limited (As Successor to Ankit Gems), Bandra (East) vs. Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai, Churchgate

ITA 3097/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Sarda, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Aditya M. Rai, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Grounds of Appeal." 2.1. Assessee has raised as many as four grounds, all of which pertain to addition made in respect of alleged bogus purchases from one entity called Millennium Concern, for which the claim of the assessee is that it has never made any purchase of any goods from

Mv Enterprise, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2388/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Am Mv Enterprise Ito 19(2)(3), Mumbai 104-A-Block, 5Th Floor, Parekhwadi, 202, Vp Road, Girguam, Mumbai – Vs. 400004. Pan/Gir No. Aaafm0632J (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Satish Mody Respondent By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. Dr)

For Appellant: Shri. Satish ModyFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (SR. DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

erred in upholding the addition to the appellants total income made by the Ld. AO, a sum of Rs.4,62,70,654/- as bogus purchases u/s.69C. The said addition be deleted, since it is contrary to the facts of the case and the applicable provisions of the Act.” 3. Briefly ... found that the assessee was one of the beneficiaries of accommodation entries provided by the entities managed by Shri. Bhawarlal Jain by way of bogus purchases, vide notice u/s. 148, dated 15.03.2019. The assessee had filed its return of income dated 07.09.2019 in response to notice u/s. 148, declaring

Income Tax Officer, Panipat vs. Suresh Malhotra, Panipat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4638/DEL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalincome Tax Officer, Suresh Malhotra Partner M/S Sai Nath Sector-6, Panipat Vs. Industries Kabri Road, Haryana-132103. Kacha Phatak, Industial Area, Panipat Haryana-132103. Pan:Aaqpm3214N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Ca Shilpi Jain Department By Shri Manish Gupta Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am, This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A), In Short] In Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10236779 Dated 05.08.2024 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 144 Of The Act Dated 23.03.2023 For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 27.09.2018 Declaring Total Income At Rs.5,00,460/-. Subsequently, Ao Received Information That Assessee Has Taken Accommodation Entries Managed By One Sh. Rajesh Mittal In The Shape Of Bogus Bills Of Purchase From Three Different Parties Managed & Run By Shri Rajesh Mittal Amounting To Rs.95,48,153/-. Based On Such Information, Ao Initiated Reassessment Proceedings After Taking Approval From Competent Authority & Notice U/S 148

Section 147Section 148Section 69C

circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 95,48,153/- made on account of bogus purchases u/s 69C ignoring the fact that the assessee has filed GSTR-I in his own name in which bogus purchases made from 3 parties were duly ... wherein the Revenue has challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.95,48,153/- made on account of bogus purchases u/s 69C on merits. However, from perusal of para 5 of the order of Ld. CIT(A), it is seen that in para

Shiv Hari Singla, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward - (1), Faridabad

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

ITA 1277/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

revenue. However, from the order of the Tribunal dated 30-04- 2010, we find that the Tribunal has deleted the additions on account of bogus purchases not only on the basis of stock statement i.e. reconciliation statement, but also in view of the other facts. The Tribunal records that

Mitesh Ashokkumar Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-3(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 580/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1622/Ahd/2019 & 580/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2013-14 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Jimi Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

course of search action, it was found that said Shri Rajendra Jain was indulged in giving accommodation entry to various clients which included bogus purchases, etc. It was also found from the documents/information collected during search action that the assessee was also beneficiary of some transactions, detail of which ... treated the aforesaid purchases from two parties as bogus and estimated the escapement of income to the extent of 12.50% of the said alleged bogus purchases and made impugned addition of Rs.34,17,260/-. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) though, confirmed the addition, however, restricted the same

Mitesh Ashokkumar Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1622/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1622/Ahd/2019 & 580/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2013-14 Respectively

For Appellant: Shri Jimi Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

course of search action, it was found that said Shri Rajendra Jain was indulged in giving accommodation entry to various clients which included bogus purchases, etc. It was also found from the documents/information collected during search action that the assessee was also beneficiary of some transactions, detail of which ... treated the aforesaid purchases from two parties as bogus and estimated the escapement of income to the extent of 12.50% of the said alleged bogus purchases and made impugned addition of Rs.34,17,260/-. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) though, confirmed the addition, however, restricted the same

M/S. Maloo Constructions(India)Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 2385/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., D.R
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 250

disallowance of Rs 97,57,825/- treating the purchases made by the appellant from M/s Gandhi Iron & Steel Co. to the aforesaid extent as bogus purchases under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 3. The learned CIT[A] ought to have appreciated that the disallowance ... placed is not furnished to the appellant especially in the absence of any action / finding by the GST Department on the so-called alleged bogus purchases under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 5. The learned CIT[A] is not justified in refusing to grant

Suresh Ukhchand Mehta HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 963/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

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

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

penalty proceedings emanate from the assessments framed under section 147/143(3), wherein additions were made on account of alleged bogus purchases. 3. Briefly stated, the Assessing Officer (AO), based on information received from the DGIT (Investigation), observed that the assessee was one of the beneficiaries of accommodation entries provided ... certain MVAT dealers who were found indulging in issuing bogus purchase bills. Based on this information, the AO reopened the assessment under section 148 and, during reassessment, applied a gross profit (GP) rate of 12.5% on the alleged non-genuine purchases. 3.1. In AY 2010‑11, the AO made

Suresh Ukhchand Mehta HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 962/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

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

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

penalty proceedings emanate from the assessments framed under section 147/143(3), wherein additions were made on account of alleged bogus purchases. 3. Briefly stated, the Assessing Officer (AO), based on information received from the DGIT (Investigation), observed that the assessee was one of the beneficiaries of accommodation entries provided ... certain MVAT dealers who were found indulging in issuing bogus purchase bills. Based on this information, the AO reopened the assessment under section 148 and, during reassessment, applied a gross profit (GP) rate of 12.5% on the alleged non-genuine purchases. 3.1. In AY 2010‑11, the AO made

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Bhagwana Ram Bishnoi, Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal ordingly, the appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue are of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3903/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bhagwana Ram Bishnoi, Dcit Circle 19(1), Shop No. 01, Ground Floor, Piramal Chambers Dr. Ss Rao Vs. Radhakrishna Co-Op. Hsg. Soc., 4Th Marg, Parel, Floor, Khetwadi Lane Khetwadi Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Acopb 3309 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit Circle 19(1), Bhagwana Ram Bishnoi, Piramal Chambers Dr. Ss Rao Marg, Shop No. 01, Gound Floow, Vs. Parel, Radhakrishna Co-Op. Hsg. Mumbai-400012. Soc., 4Th Floor, Khetwadi Lane Khetwadi Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Acopb 3309 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: 20/08/2025

addition of Rs 4,46,933/ has erred in confirming addition of Rs 4,46,933/- on account of on account of alleged Bogus Bogus Purchases 2.1 The grounds raised by the Revenue in its appeal are The grounds raised by the Revenue in its appeal are The grounds raised ... right in restricting the addition to 12.5% of ht in restricting the addition to 12.5% of the I total bogus purchase as against addition by the A0 of the I total bogus purchase as against addition by the A0 of the I total bogus purchase as against addition

ITO 19(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Anita Dinesh Dhokar, Mumbai

Accordingly, in terms of the aforesaid CBDT circular, the present appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 2457/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

made on ad-hoc basis were not arbitrary but based on undisputed fact that the assessee has taken accommodation entries in the form of bogus purchase. The quantification of income out of bogus purchases was made but it does not alter the fact that the assessee has concealed the particulars ... Mumbai Va Kanak Impex (India) Ltd (2015)172 Taxmann.com 283(Bombay) Dated. 03.03.2025, wherein it was held that the 100% addition made on the bogus purchases has been allowed, by rejecting the Hon'ble ITAT decision of estimating the profit rate @ 12.5% on bogus purchases and thereby impliedly grant deduction

Khodiyar Impexc/S, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of appeal of

ITA 2199/MUM/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing)

Section 144Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

r.w.s. 147 on 30.03.2015. The assessing officer while passing Khodiyar Impex the assessment order made addition on account of disallowances of non- genuine purchases / bogus purchases by taking view that assessee is beneficiary of purchases shown from hawala operators. The assessing officer made addition of Rs. 1.86 crores, being ... from Jewel Diam and Daksh Diamonds. However, on appeal before ld. CIT(A), such disallowances were restricted to 3.00% of the disputed purchases/ alleged bogus purchase. In the meantime, the assessing officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) at 100% of tax sought to be evaded. The assessing officer

Bhagwana Ram Bishnoi, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 19(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, the appeal ordingly, the appeals of the assessee as well as Revenue are of the assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1815/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bhagwana Ram Bishnoi, Dcit Circle 19(1), Shop No. 01, Ground Floor, Piramal Chambers Dr. Ss Rao Vs. Radhakrishna Co-Op. Hsg. Soc., 4Th Marg, Parel, Floor, Khetwadi Lane Khetwadi Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Acopb 3309 B Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit Circle 19(1), Bhagwana Ram Bishnoi, Piramal Chambers Dr. Ss Rao Marg, Shop No. 01, Gound Floow, Vs. Parel, Radhakrishna Co-Op. Hsg. Mumbai-400012. Soc., 4Th Floor, Khetwadi Lane Khetwadi Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Acopb 3309 B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: 20/08/2025

addition of Rs 4,46,933/ has erred in confirming addition of Rs 4,46,933/- on account of on account of alleged Bogus Bogus Purchases 2.1 The grounds raised by the Revenue in its appeal are The grounds raised by the Revenue in its appeal are The grounds raised ... right in restricting the addition to 12.5% of ht in restricting the addition to 12.5% of the I total bogus purchase as against addition by the A0 of the I total bogus purchase as against addition by the A0 of the I total bogus purchase as against addition

Income Tax Officer-24(1)(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chambers vs. Girish Nanddas Agrawal, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4326/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary(Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Ito-24(1)(1) Girish Nanddas Agrawal Room No. 604 Flat No. 303, Building No. Piramal Chambers Vs. 03, Borivali East Parel, Mumbai-400 012. Maharashtra-400 066. Pan : Adlpa8518R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Swapnil ChoudharyFor Respondent: Shri Devendra Jain
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 44ASection 68

records, sale and purchase bills before Ld. AO for verification and no adverse inference was drawn. f) No addition was made on account of bogus purchases and hence sales should be treated as genuine. g) The Ld. CIT(A) was convinced about all the evidences and gave relief