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.

662 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 3clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai6,196Delhi2,866Kolkata987Jaipur667Ahmedabad662Chennai569Surat462Pune419Bangalore381Chandigarh300Hyderabad231Indore207Raipur174Rajkot133Karnataka128Amritsar120Nagpur116Lucknow81Visakhapatnam75Guwahati75Cuttack70Cochin67Calcutta67Agra52Jodhpur49Allahabad35Patna34Ranchi29Telangana20Dehradun18Jabalpur14Varanasi8SC7Panaji5Orissa3Gauhati2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Punjab & Haryana1Bombay1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Addition to Income88Section 14770Section 14861Section 143(3)56Section 6849Section 69A29Disallowance29Natural Justice28Bogus Purchases

SAKET M JAINI(HUF),AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-5, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 579/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 579/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Saket M. Jain (Huf), The Pr. Commissioner Of 403, 3Rd Eye Two, Vs. Income Tax-2, Nr. Joyalukkas Show Room, Ahmedabad. Opp. Parimal Garden, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri A.L. Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, CIT.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

3,92,59,500/- is bogus. Thus once purchases are bogus then the sales shown by the assessee against such purchases are also bogus. But the AO in the assessment framed under section

Showing 1–20 of 662 · Page 1 of 34

...
25
Reopening of Assessment25
Section 143(2)24
Survey u/s 133A20

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

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

bogus is essentially a question of fact. The Tribunal having examined the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the assessee did purchase the cloth and sell the finished goods. In that view of the matter, as natural corollary, not the entire amount covered under such purchase, but the profit element embedded therein would be subject to tax. This

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

bogus is essentially a question of fact. The Tribunal having examined the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the assessee did purchase the cloth and sell the finished goods. In that view of the matter, as natural corollary, not the entire amount covered under such purchase, but the profit element embedded therein would be subject to tax. This

MADHAV COPPER LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR

ITA 275/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: (Responent)
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

purchases from entities flagged in GST investigations as bogus suppliers. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice under section 148 and framed the reassessment under section 143(3

MADHAV COPPER LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three by the assessee, stand dismissed

ITA 276/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Adv., and Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR, and Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

bogus suppliers. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice under section 148 and framed the ITA No.254 to 256 and 274 to 276 /Ahd/2024 3 reassessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147. On finding that the assessee had not satisfactorily discharged the onus of establishing the genuineness of purchases

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR vs. MADHAV COPPER LIMITED, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three by the assessee, stand dismissed

ITA 254/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Adv., and Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR, and Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

bogus suppliers. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice under section 148 and framed the ITA No.254 to 256 and 274 to 276 /Ahd/2024 3 reassessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147. On finding that the assessee had not satisfactorily discharged the onus of establishing the genuineness of purchases

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(8), BHAVNAGAR vs. MADHAV COPPER LIMITED, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, all six appeals, three by the Revenue and three by the assessee, stand dismissed

ITA 256/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Adv., and Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR, and Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

bogus suppliers. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued notice under section 148 and framed the ITA No.254 to 256 and 274 to 276 /Ahd/2024 3 reassessment under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147. On finding that the assessee had not satisfactorily discharged the onus of establishing the genuineness of purchases

AMBE TRADECORP PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 53/AHD/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 Sept 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.53/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Ambe Tradecorp Private Limited, The P.C.I.T.(Central) Iscon House, Vs. Ahmedabad. B/H. Rembrandt Building, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Smt Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mohd. Usman, CIT.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

bogus entries in the form of loan from these companies. But the AO, during the assessment proceedings has not considered this fact. In this connection, we have gone through the order of settlement commission which is available on record. Going through para No. 12 of such order we find that the settlement commission has discussed the flow of fund transferred

RUDRA GLOBAL INFRA PRODUCTS LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR

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

ITA 2069/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 270ASection 69C

3) of the Act. The case of assessee was reopened on basis of information received from Sales Tax Department that assessee had made purchases of Rs. 4.50 crores, which seemed to be accommodation entries. An order was passed making entire addition of Rs. 4.50 crores as bogus purchase under section

SHRI BHUPENDRA S. CHOKSHI,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1 (2), , VADODARA

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

ITA 1854/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Sept 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year : 2007-08 Shri Bhupendra S. Chokshi Dcit, Cir.1(2) Prop: S. Kanjibhai Jewellers Vs Vadodara. Sb-35-36, Siddarth Complex Rc Dutt Road Vadodara 390 005 Pan : Abfpc 5333C

For Respondent: Shri Mukesh Thawani
Section 148Section 250(6)

3 are dismissed. 7. The ld.counsel for the assessee pointed out from the above that the ld.CIT(A) dismissed the assesses alternative contention and confirmed the entire addition of bogus purchases noting the fact that the impugned purchases had been admitted to be bogus by the parties from whom the purchases had been made and admitted to be only bills

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)

3) read with section 147 of the Act vide order dated 01-11-2017 is not sustainable and thus liable to be quashed. However the learned CIT(A) rejected the contention of the assessee by observing as under: 2.3, / have carefully considered the issues, submissions of the appellant, judicial pronouncements and the discussions/findings of the AO in the assessment order

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)

3) read with section 147 of the Act vide order dated 01-11-2017 is not sustainable and thus liable to be quashed. However the learned CIT(A) rejected the contention of the assessee by observing as under: 2.3, / have carefully considered the issues, submissions of the appellant, judicial pronouncements and the discussions/findings of the AO in the assessment order

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1),, BARODA vs. M/S/ AMAR MINING COMPANY,, BARODA

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1032/AHD/2016[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Oct 2018AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 1998-99

For Appellant: Apoorva Bharadwaj, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Soparkar &
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

bogus purchases under section 143(3) read with section 254 of the Act. The Assessing Officer was of the view

THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT TERCE LABORATORIES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 1477/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jul 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri G.C. Daxini, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri A.C. Shah & Shri Bhadresh
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250(6)

bogus trade made by the respondent-assessee. Assessee is in the business of trading in iron and steel. For the Assessment Year 2003-2004, during the reassessment proceedings, it was found that the purchases worth Rs. 61.40Lacs (rounded off) were not supported by sufficient evidence. The assessee's claim of having purchased such goods from various suppliers was verified

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT TERCE LABORATORIES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 1826/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jul 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri G.C. Daxini, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri A.C. Shah & Shri Bhadresh
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250(6)

bogus trade made by the respondent-assessee. Assessee is in the business of trading in iron and steel. For the Assessment Year 2003-2004, during the reassessment proceedings, it was found that the purchases worth Rs. 61.40Lacs (rounded off) were not supported by sufficient evidence. The assessee's claim of having purchased such goods from various suppliers was verified

THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT TERCE LABORATORIES LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

ITA 2301/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jul 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri G.C. Daxini, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri A.C. Shah & Shri Bhadresh
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250(6)

bogus trade made by the respondent-assessee. Assessee is in the business of trading in iron and steel. For the Assessment Year 2003-2004, during the reassessment proceedings, it was found that the purchases worth Rs. 61.40Lacs (rounded off) were not supported by sufficient evidence. The assessee's claim of having purchased such goods from various suppliers was verified

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) As such all purchases are genuine and all payments have been made through regular banking channels only. Sales have been made from the said purchase and payments received through banking channels. We have submitted complete details of purchases / sales and payments / receipts. Even party-wise and month- wise purchases and sales details are also already submitted. (4) With specific

RAMCHAND BHULCHAND RAJAI,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1, , BHAVNAGAR

ITA 167/AHD/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 167/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Ramchand Bhulchand Rajai, The Deputy Commissioner C/O. Jayesh Tyres, Vs. Of Income-Tax, Opp. Railway Station, Circle-1, Bhavnagar Bhavnagar-364001 Pan : Abmpr 4841 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri B.R. Popat, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Popat, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

purchase register does not reflect expenses of Rs.12,12,400/- claimed by the assessee. Thus, the officer disallowed the unexplained expenses of Rs. 12,12,400/-. The Ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 28.03.2014 confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,81,860/- due to non verifiability of claim of expenses and also considering the volume of freight receipt

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)

bogus purchases but was specifically made by invoking the provisions of section 40A(3). It was argued that such disallowance

THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(5),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. SHUBH CONSTRUCTION,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1736/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Sept 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Ld. ClT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of R/1,08,94,360/-out of the total addition made of Rs.1,24,50,697/- on account of bogus purchases