BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

39 results for “bogus purchases”+ Demonetizationclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi164Mumbai49Jaipur49Chennai46Ahmedabad39Agra19Surat18Lucknow18Chandigarh18Jodhpur15Bangalore11Guwahati7Indore7Kolkata7Pune6Rajkot6Amritsar4Raipur4Jabalpur2Hyderabad2Visakhapatnam1Dehradun1Patna1Ranchi1Varanasi1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 6847Addition to Income36Cash Deposit35Section 69A32Demonetization31Section 115B22Section 143(3)21Section 14820Section 14718Unexplained Cash Credit

REKHABEN INDRAVADAN CHOKSHI,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-5(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Department’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 270/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

Section 133(6)

demonetization. However, the assessing officer has demonstrated that the cash sales were clearly bogus in nature and in order to cover up claim of bogus sales, bogus stock/ I.T.A Nos. 270 & 287/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 10 Rekhaben INdravadan Chokshi vs. ITO purchases

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. REKHA INDRAVADAN CHOKSHI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the Department’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 287/AHD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

Showing 1–20 of 39 · Page 1 of 2

16
Section 25011
Natural Justice11
Section 133(6)

demonetization. However, the assessing officer has demonstrated that the cash sales were clearly bogus in nature and in order to cover up claim of bogus sales, bogus stock/ I.T.A Nos. 270 & 287/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2017-18 10 Rekhaben INdravadan Chokshi vs. ITO purchases

KSHETRAPAL GOLD PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 105/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kshetrapal Gold Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sf-1, Kush Avenue, Mandvi Ni Ward 2(1)(2), Pole, Manek Chowk, Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad Gujarat-380001 Pan : Aafck 6724 M अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" यथ" Assessee By : Shri Mahesh Chhajed, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.10.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22.10.2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta: Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 20.11.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- “1. The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit (A) Is Against Law, Equity & Justice. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding Rejection Of Books Of Accounts In Contravention To The Provisions Of Act. 3. The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding Addition Made By The Ld. A.O. U/S 68 Of The Act Even After Rejection Books Of Accounts.

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr DR
Section 115BSection 145Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

demonetization period. He pointed out that even the purchases of the assessee were held by the AO to be all cooked up. The ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that 5 Kshetrapal Gold Pvt Ltd Vs. ITO AY : 2017-18 none of his findings with regard to the sales and purchases being bogus

BHARAT BULLION,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WAD-1(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 153/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.153/Ahd/2025 – Asst.Year – 2017-18 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.85/Ahd/2025 – Asst.Year – 2017-18 1. Bharat Bullion 1.The Ito बनाम/ 165-Ganchi Ni Pole Ward-1(2)(1), Ahmedabad V/S. M.G. Haveli Road Manekchowk Ahmedabad – 380 015

For Appellant: Shri Divyang Shah &For Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 68Section 69

bogus sales book, especially when the purchases have not been doubted and the cash deposits/cash sales during the year are less than that was made in the immediately preceding assessment year. Though in the immediately subsequent year, i.e. AY 2018-19, the cash sales and cash deposits have considerably reduced, however the same is the after effect of demonetization

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RAJESHKUMAR RAMESHCHANDRA SHAH, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1074/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &
Section 250Section 68

bogus purchase by the appellant. The AO has made the addition by treating the cash deposited out of regular books of accounts. Thus making an addition on account of deposit of cash which is duly accounted for in the books of accounts without rejecting the books of accounts, is totally unwarranted. In the instant case, the cash deposited was duly

INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR vs. ANKIT GOLD LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 429/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. & Shri
Section 133(6)Section 145Section 68

demonetization period with those in the prior year was immaterial, as such fluctuations are normal in the jewellery business, which is subject to seasonal and demand-driven volatility. 5. In view of the submissions of the assessee, CIT(Appeals) allowed the appeal of the assessee and held that the addition made under section 68 of the Act. CIT(Appeals) held

VASUDEV CHOTABHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(5), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 704/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.704/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Vasudev Chotabhai Patel The Ito बनाम/ 1, Refinary Road Ward-1(2)(5) V/S. Opp. Ipcl Corporate Office Vadodara – 390 007 At Po Undera Vadodara – 391 330 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Acppp 2559 N (अपीलाथ(/ Appellant) ()* यथ(/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajenkumar M.Vasavda, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg:

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajenkumar M.Vasavda, Sr.DR
Section 250Section 69A

bogus and thereby treating the cash deposits made by the assessee as unexplained income of the assessee. 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the impugned orders of the lower authorities to submit that both the lower authorities have made/confirmed the impugned addition by mentioning that the assessee has not filed

RAVIKUMAR KAMLESHBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -5(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 497/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri M. S. Chhajed, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharninath V. S., Sr. D.R
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 145Section 68

purchase and corresponding bogus cash sales. As the assessee could not prove the genuineness of the retail sale shown, which as per assessee is the basis of mounting cash in hand, and also the efforts made by this office by issuing notices u/s.133(6) of the IT Act were failed due to non-confirmation from the parties with whom sales/purchases

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI MAHENDRAKUMAR LALJIBHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 194/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-D.R
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

purchase invoices, details of the parties to whom sales were made and also demonstrated that the sales of ornaments were from the stocks in hands only. 2.2. The Ld AO verified the submissions of the assessee and called for month-wise cash position and made comparison of sales during the demonetization period with that of the rest of the financial

BHAUMIK JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1642/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1642/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Bhaumik Jewellers Private The Ito बनाम/ Limited Ward-1(1)(2) V/S. 111, Gold Souk Complex Ahmedabad B/H. Sapphire Complex Cg Road Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aagcb 2423 B (अपीलाथ)/ Appellant) (*+ यथ)/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/02/2026 आदेश/O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [In Short “The Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Dated 26/07/2024 Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (In Short “The Ao”) Under Section 143(3) Of The Act For The Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated The Confirmation Of The Addition Of Rs. 9,65,97,834/- Made By The Ao Under Section 68 Of The Act Bhaumik Jewellers Private Limited Vs. The Ito Asst. Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

bogus. Though the AO has doubted the purchases, it is not the case of the AO that the assessee had not debited the amount of purchases from its books or that the assessee had made purchases out of its unexplained income. Once the purchases are accepted and the stock is not disputed, the sales flowing out of such stock Bhaumik

RAMESHKUMAR MELAPCHAND SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1665/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

bogus which the AO failed to do so though he alleges that those purchases were not genuine. It amounts to only assumption by the AO against the facts on records gathered based on his own enquiries during the assessment proceedings. So, it is evident that purchase has happened during the period as mentioned by the AO and it is beyond

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RAMESHKUMAR MELAPCHAND SHAH, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1618/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

bogus which the AO failed to do so though he alleges that those purchases were not genuine. It amounts to only assumption by the AO against the facts on records gathered based on his own enquiries during the assessment proceedings. So, it is evident that purchase has happened during the period as mentioned by the AO and it is beyond

ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ALPA JAYMIN SONI, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 812/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr. DR
Section 69A

purchase and sale of jewellery/bullion and the assessee has made huge cash deposits during the demonetization period i.e. 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016. The assessee's case was selected for complete scrutiny for the reason to verify the source of the large amount of cash deposit made during the demonetization period. To verify the source of the said cash deposit, details were

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD, INCOME TAX VEJALPUR OFFICE NEAR SACHIN TOWER vs. ARVINDBHAI JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED, OPP LAL BANGLOW AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1113/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Ito, Ward-1(1)(3) Vs. Arvindbhai Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. Ahmedabad. 408/5, Arvindbhai House C.G. Road, Opp: Lal Bunglow, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaeac 9595 R (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Ms.Arti N. Shah, Ar : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Ms.Arti N. Shah, AR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 68

purchase details, stock register and invoices/ sale bills etc. 5.1.7 The only specific defect in the evidence produced by the appellant seen discussed in the assessment order is as under:” On perusal of the duplicate invoices submitted by the assessee, it is noticed that the assessee has raised all the invoices mentioned only name of the buyers. The assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ROOT & SEED ORGANIC PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 968/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 68

bogus due to these few discrepancies, even if they existed. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) had also directed the AO, in the remand proceeding, to examine the availability of stock to justify the cash sales ITO vs. Root & Seed Orqanic Pvt Ltd Page 5 of 8 disclosed by the assessee. This exercise was carried out by the Assessing Officer

HIRAL TAPANKUMAR CHUDGAR,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 43/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member And\nShri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Accountant Member\nITA Nos 43 & 44/Ahd/2025\nAssessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19\nHiral Tapankumar\nChudgar\n201/A, Premdarshan,\nBehind Jay Ambe School,\nSamasavli Raod, Vemali,\nVadodara-390008,\nGujarat\nPAN: ANCPC4000H\n(Appellant)\nIncome Tax Officer\nWard-1(3)(1),\nVs Vadodara\n(Respondent)\nAssessee Represented:\nShri Deepak Shah, A.R.\nRevenue Represented:\nShri Abhijit, Sr.D.R.\nDate of hearing\n: 18-06-

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69Section 69A

demonetization period as unexplained money\nu/s.69 r.w.s.115BBE of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer\nassessed the income at Rs.1,03,04,377/- and demanded tax\nthereon.\n3. Aggrieved against the reassessment order assessee filed appeal\nbefore Ld. CIT(A) who has given seven opportunities of hearing\nbetween 26-07-2024 to 08-11-2024. As there was no response from

HIRAL TAPANKUMAR CHUDGAR,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 44/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69Section 69A

bogus accommodation entries of Long Term Capital Gain/Loss and Short Term Capital Gain/Loss. The assessee was one among the beneficiary who was obtained Long Term Capital Gain of Rs. 29,55,558/- and claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. Thus the income chargeable to tax of Rs.29,55,558/- for the Asst. Year 2017- 18 has escaped assessment

M/S. V.N. EXPORTS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 817/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 69A

demonetization commensurate to the bogus sales alleged to have been made by the assessee. We have no hesitation therefore in confirming the order of the Ld.CIT(A) deleting the entire sales of Rs.7,88,85,082/- on account of bogus sales. 7.2 Further the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of Ahmedabad in the case of Kaneiyalal Ramjibhai & Sons

HARSHVARDHAN T.SONI,DAHOD vs. THE ACIT, PANCHAMAHAL CIRCLE, GODHRA PRESENT JURISDICTION THE ACIT., ANAND CIRCLE,, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 171/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri M K Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 271ASection 68

purchases were made during the period of demonetization. Thus, it can be seen that if the veil of secrecy is pierced the real nature of the transactions the appellant had indulged in are revealed. In the light of the circumstantial evidences the lull or tepid activity in the period before demonetization and sudden spurt in the period just before demonetization

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1)(1) VADODARA, VADODARA vs. DAMODARDAS MOHANLAL CHOKSHI, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 554/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. & Shri ParinFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT D.R
Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69B

purchases shown in bank accounts which was held as bogus by the Assessing Officer. The statement of partner also mentioned modus operandi of sales after the announcement of demonetization