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.

41 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 149clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi439Mumbai430Jaipur174Bangalore101Karnataka99Chennai97Kolkata88Chandigarh74Cochin58Amritsar44Ahmedabad41Calcutta36Raipur28Pune28Rajkot26Guwahati26Hyderabad26Surat24Nagpur15Indore13Agra12Lucknow11Visakhapatnam8Jodhpur8Patna5Cuttack4Ranchi2SC2Gauhati1Telangana1

Key Topics

Addition to Income31Disallowance27Section 143(3)21Section 14721Section 43B20Section 14813Section 80I13Section 115J12Penalty12

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

Showing 1–20 of 41 · Page 1 of 3

Depreciation12
Deduction10
Section 689

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

149(1)(b) of the Act would be satisfied if the\ncumulative value of the expenditure exceeds Rs.50 lakhs, provided\nthat the same is related to an event or occasion.\n20. Concededly, the issue involved in the present case is covered by the\ndecision of this court in L-1 Identity Solutions Operating Company Private\nLimited (supra). The petition

GUJARAT VAIBHAV PUBLICATIONS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1359/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37

Section 149 of the Act was not applicable in the present case. With regards to merits of the addition, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that mere copy of invoice/bill for the purchases and the payments through banking channel does not establish the genuineness of the purchases. He submitted that no supporting documents for transportation of goods, delivery challan, vehicle

GUJARAT VAIBHAV PUBLICATIONS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1358/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37

Section 149 of the Act was not applicable in the present case. With regards to merits of the addition, the Ld. Sr. DR submitted that mere copy of invoice/bill for the purchases and the payments through banking channel does not establish the genuineness of the purchases. He submitted that no supporting documents for transportation of goods, delivery challan, vehicle

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. , BARODA

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

ITA 1520/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Advocate & Shri Parin Shah
Section 10Section 115JSection 28

bogus by the Maharashtra VAT department. To our understanding, based upon the information received from the 3rd party, until and unless it is confronted to the assessee, no adverse inference can be drawn. There can be various reasons for the cancellation of the registration such as ITA No. 1462, 1463, 1519 & 1520/Ahd/2018 [Sun Pharma Laboratories

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

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

ITA 1463/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Advocate & Shri Parin Shah
Section 10Section 115JSection 28

bogus by the Maharashtra VAT department. To our understanding, based upon the information received from the 3rd party, until and unless it is confronted to the assessee, no adverse inference can be drawn. There can be various reasons for the cancellation of the registration such as ITA No. 1462, 1463, 1519 & 1520/Ahd/2018 [Sun Pharma Laboratories

DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. , BARODA

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

ITA 1519/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Advocate & Shri Parin Shah
Section 10Section 115JSection 28

bogus by the Maharashtra VAT department. To our understanding, based upon the information received from the 3rd party, until and unless it is confronted to the assessee, no adverse inference can be drawn. There can be various reasons for the cancellation of the registration such as ITA No. 1462, 1463, 1519 & 1520/Ahd/2018 [Sun Pharma Laboratories

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

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

ITA 1462/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Advocate & Shri Parin Shah
Section 10Section 115JSection 28

bogus by the Maharashtra VAT department. To our understanding, based upon the information received from the 3rd party, until and unless it is confronted to the assessee, no adverse inference can be drawn. There can be various reasons for the cancellation of the registration such as ITA No. 1462, 1463, 1519 & 1520/Ahd/2018 [Sun Pharma Laboratories

GANDHINAGAR DISTRICT CO.OP.MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE GANDHINAGA, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 512/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Dr. DArsi Suman Ratnam, CIT D.R. & Shri
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 80PSection 80P(2)(c)Section 80P(2)(d)

149(2)(b) is not forthcoming from reasons for reopening, reopening is not justified. Reliance was placed on the case of Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs. CIT 363 ITR 300 (Allahabad) and Novo Nordisk India P. Ltd. - (2018) 95 taxmann.com 225 (Kar.) in support of the above proposition. In this case, amount of income escaping assessment has not at all been

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), VADODARA vs. M/S KALPTARU PACKAGING PVT LTD, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection disposed off as above

ITA 2039/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Feb 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Rameshkumar L. Sadhu, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil R. Shah & Ms. Kinjal Shah, A.R
Section 144Section 145(1)Section 250(6)Section 271

section 145(1) of the Act. The book result is rejected and the total income of the assessee is determined in the succeeding paras in the manner provided u/s 144 of the Act. Therefore, by borrowing the ratio and philosophy of judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of M/s Vijay Proteins Ltd.[2015] 58 taxmann.com

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)

149–263 of P/B); - Tax audit report and annual accounts (pages 104–132 of P/B). 2.11 The AR highlighted that no defect had been pointed out in these documentary evidences, and despite multiple submissions, the AO failed to rebut the material on record. It was also pointed out that the show cause notice issued by the AO did not contain

CHINMAY YOGESHKUMAR AGRAWAL, HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 2431/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

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

Section 132Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

149, and 151 do not apply. Therefore, the notice issued under Section 148 is contrary to the applicable legal provisions and is liable to be quashed. 2. The Ld. CITIA) has erred in not appreciating that the Ld.AO has obtained approval for issuance of the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act from the authority designated as 'Range

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1447/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Revenue by Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT DR with Shri Urjit Shah, A.R
Section 40ASection 68

149 to 150 of the paper book. Likewise, the assessee claimed to have incurred the cost for the purchase of the car at Rs. 41 Lacs as on 20th March 2009 which is also reflecting in the ledger account but the same is not matching with the invoice i.e. of Rs. 37,27,150/-. Accordingly the question comes to determine

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 187/AHD/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Revenue by Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT DR with Shri Urjit Shah, A.R
Section 40ASection 68

149 to 150 of the paper book. Likewise, the assessee claimed to have incurred the cost for the purchase of the car at Rs. 41 Lacs as on 20th March 2009 which is also reflecting in the ledger account but the same is not matching with the invoice i.e. of Rs. 37,27,150/-. Accordingly the question comes to determine

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 2557/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Revenue by Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT DR with Shri Urjit Shah, A.R
Section 40ASection 68

149 to 150 of the paper book. Likewise, the assessee claimed to have incurred the cost for the purchase of the car at Rs. 41 Lacs as on 20th March 2009 which is also reflecting in the ledger account but the same is not matching with the invoice i.e. of Rs. 37,27,150/-. Accordingly the question comes to determine

SHIVAM WATER TREATERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD), CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1320/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Revenue by Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT DR with Shri Urjit Shah, A.R
Section 40ASection 68

149 to 150 of the paper book. Likewise, the assessee claimed to have incurred the cost for the purchase of the car at Rs. 41 Lacs as on 20th March 2009 which is also reflecting in the ledger account but the same is not matching with the invoice i.e. of Rs. 37,27,150/-. Accordingly the question comes to determine

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 116/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, and Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhas Bains, CIT-DR and Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DR

149/- which comprised disallowance of Rs.2,65,26,656/- out of general administrative expenses and Rs.2,19,77,493/- on account of interest expenses. The AO has worked out this disallowance by following formulae provided in Rule 8D. Dissatisfied with the disallowance, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) confirmed methodology adopted

THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, BARODA vs. GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMEICALS LTD, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 548/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, and Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhas Bains, CIT-DR and Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DR

149/- which comprised disallowance of Rs.2,65,26,656/- out of general administrative expenses and Rs.2,19,77,493/- on account of interest expenses. The AO has worked out this disallowance by following formulae provided in Rule 8D. Dissatisfied with the disallowance, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) confirmed methodology adopted

THA ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, BARODA vs. M/S. GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 106/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, and Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhas Bains, CIT-DR and Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DR

149/- which comprised disallowance of Rs.2,65,26,656/- out of general administrative expenses and Rs.2,19,77,493/- on account of interest expenses. The AO has worked out this disallowance by following formulae provided in Rule 8D. Dissatisfied with the disallowance, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) confirmed methodology adopted

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2365/AHD/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, and Shri Parin Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhas Bains, CIT-DR and Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DR

149/- which comprised disallowance of Rs.2,65,26,656/- out of general administrative expenses and Rs.2,19,77,493/- on account of interest expenses. The AO has worked out this disallowance by following formulae provided in Rule 8D. Dissatisfied with the disallowance, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) confirmed methodology adopted