← 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

Santosh Laujari Gupta, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer - 33(3)(3), Kautilya Bhavan

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

ITA 2971/MUM/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Santosh Laujari Gupta Ito, Ward-33(3)(3), Mumbai A-801, Raj Heights, M G Road, Near Vs Vora Colony, Kandivali West, Mumbai-400067. [Pan No. Adupg8487C] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 254(1)

estimation made by assessing officer in an arbitrary manner. The ld. AR of the assessee of the assessee submits that the alleged bogus purchases as per observation of assessing officer are of Rs. 2.40 crore. In A.Y. 2011-12, the assessing officer 3 Santosh Laujari Gupta estimated gross profit ... decision as referred by ld. CIT(A), I find that in all such decisions the subject matter of disallowances was the component of alleged bogus purchases and not the entire turnover. The entire turnover of assessee in the present case is Rs. 7.24 crores, however, the tainted / disputed purchases

Shree Mangalam Aluminium, Patna vs. Dc/ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna

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

ITA 488/PAT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. Nos. 486 To 488/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 To 2016-2017 Shree Mangalam Aluminium,…...….………Appellant Pandey Plaza Building, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Abkfs3963M] -Vs.- Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,……………………………………………………..Respondent Central Circle-3, Patna, Bihar

Section 106Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

Bench of Mumbai Tribunal cited supra, wherein it was held that “merely because some adhoc gross profit rate has been applied on such alleged bogus purchases to factor in suppression of alleged gross profit, no penalty can be levied for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealing particulars

Shree Mangalam Aluminium, Patna vs. Dc/ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna

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

ITA 487/PAT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. Nos. 486 To 488/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 To 2016-2017 Shree Mangalam Aluminium,…...….………Appellant Pandey Plaza Building, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Abkfs3963M] -Vs.- Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,……………………………………………………..Respondent Central Circle-3, Patna, Bihar

Section 106Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

Bench of Mumbai Tribunal cited supra, wherein it was held that “merely because some adhoc gross profit rate has been applied on such alleged bogus purchases to factor in suppression of alleged gross profit, no penalty can be levied for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealing particulars

Shree Mangalam Aluminium, Patna vs. Dc/ACIT, Central Circle-3, Patna

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

ITA 486/PAT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. Nos. 486 To 488/Pat/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 To 2016-2017 Shree Mangalam Aluminium,…...….………Appellant Pandey Plaza Building, Exhibition Road, Patna-800001, Bihar [Pan:Abkfs3963M] -Vs.- Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,……………………………………………………..Respondent Central Circle-3, Patna, Bihar

Section 106Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271(1)(c)

Bench of Mumbai Tribunal cited supra, wherein it was held that “merely because some adhoc gross profit rate has been applied on such alleged bogus purchases to factor in suppression of alleged gross profit, no penalty can be levied for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealing particulars

Binal Vikash Bhardwaj, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 3462/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

however Ld. CIT(A) purportedly decided the appeal on merit and confirmed the order of AO with respect to addition made on account of bogus purchase. 2. Since the facts of both the appeals filed by the assessee are exactly same and parties are same, hence both the appeals ... total income at Rs. 1,37,34,943/- and the addition of Rs. 1,28,61,030/- made u/s 69C on account of bogus purchases. 4. The assessee challenged the said order before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 07.10.2015 had deleted entire addition made on account

Binal Vikash Bhardwaj, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 4(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 3461/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

however Ld. CIT(A) purportedly decided the appeal on merit and confirmed the order of AO with respect to addition made on account of bogus purchase. 2. Since the facts of both the appeals filed by the assessee are exactly same and parties are same, hence both the appeals ... total income at Rs. 1,37,34,943/- and the addition of Rs. 1,28,61,030/- made u/s 69C on account of bogus purchases. 4. The assessee challenged the said order before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 07.10.2015 had deleted entire addition made on account

S.N. Malhotra & Sons, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

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

ITA 719/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 132

raised by the assessee emerged therefrom is that whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in applying Gross Profit (‘GP’) @ 20% of the said bogus purchases of Rs.43,16,444/-. 3. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee- appellant filed its Income Tax Return ... garb of purchases during the relevant year. Hence, the Assessing Officer (‘AO’), with detailed reasoning mentioned in the assessment order disallowed the entire bogus purchases of Rs.43,16,444/- and taxed the same in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before

Income Tax Officer 7(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Palmon Impex Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue are dismissed in above terms

ITA 2939/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanpalmon Impex Pvt. Ltd. Ito-7(3)(1), 9, Janata Indudstries Compound, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, 162, S. B. Marg, Lower Parel (W), Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400013 Pan: Aaecm3977F

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Subsequently, based on the information that, during the FY 2010-11, the assessee had availed accommodation entries in the form of bogus purchases from three concerns i.e. (i) M/s. Monica InternationalRs.18,21,402/-, (ii) M/s. Arihant Trading Co.- Rs.11,42,688/-; and (iii) M/s. Gold Star Trading Co.- Rs.1 ... estimated GP Percentage @ 18.5%, being the possible profit out of the purchases made through non-genuine parties/bogus purchase. Accordingly, the AO treated 18.5% of bogus purchases of Rs.2,19,33,171/-, which worked out to Rs.40,57,637/-, as disallowable expenses on account of bogus purchases. Thus, the AO passed

Palmon Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer- 7(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue are

ITA 2561/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Subsequently, based on the information that, during the FY 2010-11, the assessee had availed accommodation entries in the form of bogus purchases from three concerns i.e. (i) M/s. Monica InternationalRs.18,21,402/-, (ii) M/s. Arihant Trading Co.- Rs.11,42,688/-; and (iii) M/s. Gold Star Trading Co.- Rs.1 ... estimated GP Percentage @ 18.5%, being the possible profit out of the purchases made through non-genuine parties/bogus purchase. Accordingly, the AO treated 18.5% of bogus purchases of Rs.2,19,33,171/-, which worked out to Rs.40,57,637/-, as disallowable expenses on account of bogus purchases. Thus, the AO passed

Incometax Officer, Bhimavaram vs. Prasad Raju Penmatsa, Bhimavaram

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

ITA 33/VIZ/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.517/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1 Penmatsa Prasad Raju D.No. 7-7-25/3 Income Tax Office Kodavalli Road, Fci Colony Aayakar Bhavan Bhimavaram – 534201 Jp Road, Sivaraopet Andhra Pradesh Bhimavaram – 534201 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aqcpp6707B] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.33/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23) Vs. Penmatsa Prasad Raju Income Tax Officer D.No. 7-7-25/3 Income Tax Office Kodavalli Road, Fci Colony Aayakar Bhavan Bhimavaram – 534201 Opp. Ganesh Canteen Andhra Pradesh Jp Road, Sivaraopet Bhimavaram – 534202 [Pan:Aqcpp6707B] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 144

invoices substantiating the purchases and therefore proceeded to make an addition of Rs.12,37,32,507/- by disallowing 25% of the payments made towards bogus purchases. 3. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) observed that ... would be lower as declared by the assessee. He further submitted that that the Ld. AO erred in treating 25% of the purchases as bogus purchases without considering the audited statements of accounts. He further submitted that trading in fish is generally unorganised and hence most of the traders / manufactures

Penmatsa Prasad Raju, Bhimavaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bhimavaram

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

ITA 517/VIZ/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.517/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1 Penmatsa Prasad Raju D.No. 7-7-25/3 Income Tax Office Kodavalli Road, Fci Colony Aayakar Bhavan Bhimavaram – 534201 Jp Road, Sivaraopet Andhra Pradesh Bhimavaram – 534201 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aqcpp6707B] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.33/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23) Vs. Penmatsa Prasad Raju Income Tax Officer D.No. 7-7-25/3 Income Tax Office Kodavalli Road, Fci Colony Aayakar Bhavan Bhimavaram – 534201 Opp. Ganesh Canteen Andhra Pradesh Jp Road, Sivaraopet Bhimavaram – 534202 [Pan:Aqcpp6707B] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 144

invoices substantiating the purchases and therefore proceeded to make an addition of Rs.12,37,32,507/- by disallowing 25% of the payments made towards bogus purchases. 3. On being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) observed that ... would be lower as declared by the assessee. He further submitted that that the Ld. AO erred in treating 25% of the purchases as bogus purchases without considering the audited statements of accounts. He further submitted that trading in fish is generally unorganised and hence most of the traders / manufactures

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Panchkula Circle, Panchkula vs. Aqua Fiber Indsutries, Panchkula

ITA 508/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the detailed submissions and supporting evidences furnished by the assessee, deleted the additions.4. The Revenue's challenge is confined to the CIT(A)'s acceptance of additional evidence allegedly in violation of Rule 46A. The merits of the deletion have not been independently challenged.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Meenakshi Vohra, CIT, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

completed under section 143(3) of the Act, making additions of Rs.11,55,99,028/-, including: Rs.10,52,04,593/- on account of alleged bogus purchases from six parties,  Rs.13,72,349/- for an unconfirmed sundry creditor (M/s Jiya Jee Synthetics),  Rs.11,88,391/- towards disallowance of freight and handling

M/S. Diach Chemicals & Pigments Private Limited, Howrah vs. Pr. CIT (Central), Kolkata - 2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 697/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.697/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S Diach Chemicals & Pigments Pvt. Ltd.………....Appellant Nh-6, Jaladhulagori Dhulaghar Industrial Park, Howrah-711302. [Pan: Aaccd1101A] Vs. Pcit, Central-2, Kolkata…..……………..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sunil Surana, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Raja Sengupta, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 22, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 25, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Pcit), Kolkata, Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case The Assessee Fled Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,24,05,910/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act On 23.04.2021 Determining Assessed Income At Rs.4,75,81,150/-. Subsequently, Pursuant To A Search & Seizure Operation Under Section 132 Of The Act In The Case Of The Diach Group Conducted On 07.12 2021 & Subsequent Dates, The Assessing Officer Reopened The Case Under Section 147 & Passed A Reassessment Order Dated 28.03 2023. In The Reassessment Order, The Ao Made An Addition Of Rs.96,84,5467/- On Account Of Bogus Purchases Under

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 69C

passed a reassessment order dated 28.03 2023. In the reassessment order, the AO made an addition of Rs.96,84,5467/- on account of bogus purchases under I.T.A. No.697/Kol/2025 M/s Diach Chemicals & Pigments Pvt. Ltd section 69C and Rs.7,34,624/- on account of delayed payment of PF/ESI, thereby determining total

Pramod Lakra Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. Urvashi Sarees Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata

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

ITA 222/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: ITAT, Kolkata were collected and prepared | | 18.01.2025 | 2nd Appeal was filed |

Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69C

cause notice and after considering the reply of the assessee, assessed the income after adding an amount of Rs. 2,05,42,360 as bogus purchases. 2.4 Aggrieved with the assessment order the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) where he could get partial relief. Further aggrieved

Urvashi Sarees Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1946/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: ITAT, Kolkata were collected and prepared | | 18.01.2025 | 2nd Appeal was filed |

Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69C

cause notice and after considering the reply of the assessee, assessed the income after adding an amount of Rs. 2,05,42,360 as bogus purchases. 2.4 Aggrieved with the assessment order the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) where he could get partial relief. Further aggrieved

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir, 20(1), Mumbai vs. Anil Monshi Shah, Mumbai

In the result, ground of

ITA 2094/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Ms. Padmavathy S(Physical Hearing) Acit, Circle – 20(1), Mumbai Anil Monshi Shah 3Rd Floor, Piramal Chambers, Vs 103, Sukh Castle, Bhandarkar Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Matunga East, Mumbai – 400019. Mumbai – 400012. [Pan: Aacps9726P] Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee

Section 148Section 254(1)

facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CITIA) has erred in restricting the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases of Rs.18,06,234/- ignoring the fact that the Maharashtra Sales Tax Department has proved beyond doubt that the parties declared as hawala traders were involved ... facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) is erred in restricting the addition to 12.5% of the bogus purchases of Rs. 18,06,234/-without appreciating the fact the assessee failed to produce the parties for verification, in spite of opportunity provided

Girish Narpatchand Kanungo, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesse bearing ITA No

ITA 1233/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeegirish Narpatchand Kanungo Vs Income-Tax Officer, 19(1)(3), 2Nd Flat No.3, Floor, 5, Mumbai, 2Nd Ramnivas Building, Piramal Chamber, Parel Mumbai- Parsiwada Lane, Opp. V.P. 400012 Road, Police Station, Mumbai- 400 004 Pan: Aoapk9201M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj JainFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary – Sr AR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

been forwarded by the DGIT (Inv), Mumbai to the Ld. AO. During the assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO found that the assesse has made bogus purchases amount Rs.4,73,87,306/-. The Ld.AO considering the assessee’s business and verified the few parties related to alleged purchases had confirmed the addition ... 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 the Books

Cicc Automation Technologies Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 12(1)(4), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of

ITA 6500/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Cicc Automation Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward – 12(1)(4), G-401, 4Th Floor, Gokul Heaven, Thakur Vs Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Complex, Kandivali East, Karve Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400101. Mumbai – 400021. [Pan No. Aaccc4389B] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 144Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68

Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)-Delhi, erred in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. of impugned addition of ₹6,19,756/- on account of alleged bogus purchases only on the basis of information received from Sales Tax Department without rejecting books of account." 3. "On the facts and in the circumstances ... assessing officer or before ld CIT(A). The assessing officer completed the assessment under section 144. The assessing officer made addition on account of bogus purchases shown from fictitious entities which were providing bogus bills without actual delivery of goods. The assessing officer disallowed 100% of purchase expenses. The assessing

Mantora Oil Products Private Limited, Kanpur vs. JCIT (OSD)/Dy. CIT Central Circle II, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 657/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow23 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 148

action of learned CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance in the case of the assessee to the extent of 5% of the impugned bogus purchases and commission. Learned CIT(A) has observed that during the assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer, the assessee had filed various documents i.e. purchase invoices

Mantora Oil Products Private Limited, Kanpur vs. JCIT (OSD)/Dy. CIT Central Circle II, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 656/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow23 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 148

action of learned CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance in the case of the assessee to the extent of 5% of the impugned bogus purchases and commission. Learned CIT(A) has observed that during the assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer, the assessee had filed various documents i.e. purchase invoices