BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI 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.

155 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 142(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,346Delhi957Kolkata355Jaipur310Chennai171Chandigarh157Ahmedabad155Surat148Bangalore129Indore114Pune106Karnataka102Rajkot84Hyderabad84Raipur66Visakhapatnam60Cochin58Calcutta45Amritsar43Nagpur41Lucknow38Guwahati38Agra28Allahabad26Patna23Jodhpur21Ranchi16Cuttack14Varanasi7Jabalpur6SC4Telangana4Dehradun3Orissa2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Bombay1

Key Topics

Section 147127Section 14894Addition to Income88Section 6847Section 26346Section 143(3)45Section 142(1)43Disallowance41Section 143(2)

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. MOHAMMEDARIF IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

ITA 962/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT DR &For Respondent: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 147

142(1) and 143(2) of the Act. The Revenue could not dispute the contents of the reply dated 11.08.2014 filed by the assessee. Thus, it is a case of mere “change of opinion”. It is a fact that the Ld. AO has no power to review but he has the power to re-assess. Even reassessment is based

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(3), AHMEDABAD vs. MOHAMMEDARIF IBRAHIMBHAI SHAIKH, AHMEDABAD

ITA 1115/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Showing 1–20 of 155 · Page 1 of 8

...
37
Reopening of Assessment36
Reassessment35
Section 25033

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT DR &For Respondent: Shri Dushyant Maharshi, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 147

142(1) and 143(2) of the Act. The Revenue could not dispute the contents of the reply dated 11.08.2014 filed by the assessee. Thus, it is a case of mere “change of opinion”. It is a fact that the Ld. AO has no power to review but he has the power to re-assess. Even reassessment is based

CHIRAG ISHWARBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1192/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1182 & 1192/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Chirag Ishwarbhai Patel, I.T.O., 49 Dharamanth Prabhu Society, Vs. Ward-3(3)(6), Near Adishawar Society, Ahmedabad. Nikol Road, Naroda, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Prakash D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr.D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

purchases from him, reopening notice against assesses was justified" 2.4. Further, the appellant has also not brought any specific evidences suggesting that this issue was considered in original Assessment Proceedings. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Praful Chunilal Patel v/s ACIT, 236 ITR 832 (Guj) has held as under: j "Section 147 of the Income

CHIRAG ISHWARBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(6), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1182/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1182 & 1192/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Chirag Ishwarbhai Patel, I.T.O., 49 Dharamanth Prabhu Society, Vs. Ward-3(3)(6), Near Adishawar Society, Ahmedabad. Nikol Road, Naroda, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Prakash D. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr.D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

purchases from him, reopening notice against assesses was justified" 2.4. Further, the appellant has also not brought any specific evidences suggesting that this issue was considered in original Assessment Proceedings. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Praful Chunilal Patel v/s ACIT, 236 ITR 832 (Guj) has held as under: j "Section 147 of the Income

SHRI PRAVIN SHIVLAL SHAH,,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3),, BARODA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1379/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

For Appellant: Shri M.J. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.L. Meena, Sr. D.R
Section 69

3. The A.O. in his order has stated as follows: "In this case, on perusal of information available on record, it is noticed that during the Financial Year 2010-11, assessee has purchased goods through Hawala dealers, namely Apex Metal Corporation, Asian Metal Industries, Krishna Steel Industries, Saradgi Syndicate & Sunrise Enterprises to the tune of Rs.30

SHITAL VIPULKUMAR DHOLAKIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

ITA 259/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate andFor Respondent: Shri Sher Singh, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 40A(3)

142(1) along with questionnaire were issued from time to time. The assessment was completed by the AO under section 143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Act vide order dated 22.12.2022, determining total income at Rs.1,46,25,25,370/- after making a disallowance of Rs.1,45,77,00,806/- u/s 40A(3) of the Act in respect of purchases claimed

U.B. COTTON PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. THE DCIT CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 85/AHD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2008-09 U.B. Cotton P.Ltd. Dcit, Cir.4(1)(1) Indian Globe Chamber Vs Ahmedabad. 7Th Floor, 142 Wh Marg, Fort Mumbai 400 001. Pan : Aaacu 5526 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/(Respondent) Assessee By : Written Submissions Revenue By : Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 04/05/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/05/2022 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: Written SubmissionsFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14A

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short), the matter travelled before the ITAT, Mumbai Bench ‘F’ and vide order dated 31.5.2017 in ITANo.3357/Mum/2012 has restored the issue of disallowance under section 14A of Rs.2,47,464/- and issue of unproving bogus purchase of Rs.29,97,477/- after examining three parties viz. 2 Ashirwad Broker, Lalitbhai Dalal

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR vs. LEELA GREENSHIP RECYCLING PRIVATE LIMITED, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of above directions

ITA 2135/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad26 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 2111/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Leela Greenship Recycling Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Office No.303, 3Rd Floor, बनाम/ Commissioner V/S. B Wing, Leela Efcee, Of Income Tax, Near Aksharwadi Temple, Circle-1, Waghawadi Road, Bhavnagar. Bhavnagar-364002. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aagcg8956L

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hargovind Singh, SR-DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 69C

142(1) were issued and complied with, albeit partially, culminating in the assessment order passed on 09.03.2023 under section 147 r.w.s. 144B. n the course of reassessment, the assessee produced purchase register entries, ledger and confirmation from M/s. Mahadev Trading Co., invoices and transport documents, RTGS evidence of payments, matching entries in GSTR-2A; and handwritten weighment slips

LEELA GREENSHIP RECYCLING PVT. LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are treated as partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes in terms of above directions

ITA 2111/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad26 Jun 2025AY 2018-19
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

142(1) were issued and\ncomplied with, albeit partially, culminating in the assessment order passed\non 09.03.2023 under section 147 r.w.s.144B. n the course of reassessment,\nthe assessee produced purchase register entries, ledger and confirmation\nfrom M/s. Mahadev Trading Co., invoices and transport documents, RTGS\nevidence of payments, matching entries in GSTR-2A; and handwritten\nweighment slips. The AO rejected

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. PANKAJ COTTON INDUSTRIES, PATAN

ITA 858/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Oct 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 68

3. It thus emerges from a perusal of the above rival pleadings that the main issue in this former assessment year 2008-09 is that of validity of assessee’s cotton purchases made from M/s Vishal Traders to the tune of Rs. 2,84,58,054/-. Case file reveals that the instant lis emanated from a search action dated

ITO WARD-4(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. VALLEY COMTRADE PVT LTD ( EARLIER KNOWN AS JHAWAR COMTRADE PVT. LTD.,), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2034/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddharatha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2034/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 I.T.O, M/S. Valley Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., Ward-4(1)(4), Vs. (Earlier Known As Jhawar Comtrade Ahmedabad. Pvt. Ltd.,) C-205, Titanium Square, Near Parsoli Bmw Showroom, Thaltej Chokdi, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aadcs3553N & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 68/Srt/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2012-2013 M/S. Valley Comtrade Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O, (Earlier Known As Jhawar Comtrade Vs. Ward-1(1)(3), Pvt. Ltd.,) Surat. C-205, Titanium Square, Near Parsoli Bmw Showroom, Thaltej Chokdi, Ahmedabad-380054. Pan: Aadcs3553N

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT. D.R with Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr.D.R
Section 13(1)(d)Section 68

3) Kolkata has reported that its name is included in the data base maintained for Jama/Kahrchi Company. Thus, it was held as bogus. However we note all the necessary information was provided by the assessee, notice issued under section 133(6) was duly complied with where Seema Holding confirmed the investment made in assessee share capital which was further confirmed

ACIT, CIRCLE-3(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KRAFT LAMINATE, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1841/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Years : 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Kraft Laminate, Income-Tax, Vs C/O. Laxmi Timber, Nr. Circle 3(2), Ahmedabad Mahalaxmi Textile Mill, Opp. Rajbai Patel Timber Market, Narol Naroda Highway, Narol, Ahmedabad-382405 Pan : Aamfk 8120 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Assessee By : Shri Manish J. Shah, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-:

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 68

bogus and fictitious expenses to non-existing parties, in our case this type of situation is not done. Legal submission & supported case law: (a) Avtarsingh & sons v/s C1T (1992) 61 Taxman 142 (Punj. & Haryana) (b) CIT v/s Chaudhary & Co. (1996) 84 Taxman 495 (Allahabad) (c) CIT v/s Punjab Boot House Ltd (1998) 142 Taxman 770 (MP) (d) Basu Distributors

DILIPKUMAR PASHABHAI PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1095/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/Sf 211 Pushp Business Campus Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Nr. Vastral Cross Road Ahmedabad Sp Ring Road Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 418 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atrpp 9632 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Jinesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 251Section 68

142(1) regarding the activities, declaring the disputed total same income transactions income as in the and verify computatio original the n, and the return filed authenticity return filed under section ITA Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati vs. ITO Asst. Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 of the credits in response 139(1), in the books. to section without 148. additional

DILIPKUMAR PASHABHAI PRAJAPATI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1096/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ C/Sf 211 Pushp Business Campus Ward-3(3)(5) V/S. Nr. Vastral Cross Road Ahmedabad Sp Ring Road Vastral Ahmedabad – 382 418 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan:Atrpp 9632 R (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jinesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.N. Dsouza, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Jinesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Dsouza, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 251Section 68

142(1) regarding the activities, declaring the disputed total same income transactions income as in the and verify computatio original the n, and the return filed authenticity return filed under section ITA Nos.1095 & 1096/Ahd/2024 Dilipkumar Pashabhai Prajapati vs. ITO Asst. Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 of the credits in response 139(1), in the books. to section without 148. additional

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 722/AHD/2014[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2022AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 147Section 148Section 43BSection 80I

bogus in nature. Nevertheless, the assessee was claiming depreciation on such fixed assets year after year including the year under consideration. However, the AO following the order of the earlier years has also disallowed the depreciation on such fixed assets at Rs. 2,74,83,963/- and added to the total income of the assessee. 113. Aggrieved assessee preferred

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(OSD) CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1345/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 147Section 148Section 43BSection 80I

bogus in nature. Nevertheless, the assessee was claiming depreciation on such fixed assets year after year including the year under consideration. However, the AO following the order of the earlier years has also disallowed the depreciation on such fixed assets at Rs. 2,74,83,963/- and added to the total income of the assessee. 113. Aggrieved assessee preferred

SHAH RAKESH BHIKHABHAI (HUF),AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 415/AHD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri T.R Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Chavda, ARFor Respondent: Shri A P Singh, CIT. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 80G

3 parties only and the assessee shall be granted deduction of Rs.5,00,000 donated to Bahujan Suraksh dal.” Rakesh Bhikhabhai(HUF) vs. PCIT Asst.Year –2018-19 - 6– 4. The above reply was considered by the Ld. PCIT and the same was found not acceptable by observing as follows: “… It has emerged from the statement u/s.132 of the Act dated

JITENDRA RAJKUMAR AGARWAL (PROPRIETOR OF SHRI SHIV SHAKTI ENTERPRISE),AHMEDABAD vs. ASESSMENT UNIT, IT DEPARTMENT JURIS. AO- THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1718/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 69C

bogus purchase accommodation entries from M/s. S. K. Enterprises amounting to Rs. 1,75,16,480/- without actual movement or delivery of goods. Based on this information, the assessment was reopened by issuance of notice under section 148 read with section 147 of the Act. 3. During reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued notices under sections 142

VINAL COAL PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

ITA 896/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 896/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 बनाम Vimal Coal Private Limited, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. T. Hiranand Estate, Nr. Fruit Income-Tax, Market, Naroda Road, Naroda, Circle 4(1)(2), Ahmedabad-380025 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabcv 4259 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Sunil Maloo, Ca ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.08.2024 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Maloo, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR
Section 145(3)Section 250

Section 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Confirmation of Addition in Absence of Contradictory Evidence: The decision of the CIT(A) to confirm the addition of INR 25,91,606/- is contended to be baseless, as it lacks substantiation through adverse documentary evidence against the Assessee. Disregard for Documentary Evidence and Vendor Confirmation: The CIT(A) is alleged

SHRI IMRAN MD. IQBAL MEMON,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-6(1)(5), AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1415/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Apr 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Divetia, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.D.R
Section 142(1)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 274Section 41(1)

3 Imran Md. Iqbal Memon. vs. ITO two parties M/s. Aarti Jewelers and M/s. Prakash Gold held to be bogus. The assessment order reveals that the said two parties were included in the list of current liabilities which included sundry creditors and advances as under: (i) Aarti Jewelers Rs. 12,98,295/- (ii) Prakash Gold