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.

14 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 36(1)(va)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai29Delhi20Ahmedabad14Chandigarh12Guwahati11Jodhpur9Jaipur8Raipur7Kolkata7Indore3Lucknow2Agra1Chennai1Bangalore1

Key Topics

Section 3516Section 6812Addition to Income12Section 25010Disallowance9Section 143(3)7Section 35(1)(ii)7Section 80I6Section 36(1)(va)5Section 132

SADBHAV ENGINEERING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed\nand that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 235/AHD/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jan 2025AY 2018-19
For Respondent: \nShri H. Phani Raju, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 69ASection 80I

36(1)(va) of the\nAct of delayed payment of employees contribution to ESI/PF\nwas confirmed.\n10. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee has come\nup in appeal before us.\n11. All the issues noted above, arise in all the appeals of the\nassessee listed before us for hearing except for some deviance. We\nshall first

4
Deduction4
Depreciation3

N K PROTEINS PVT. LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, no question of law arises

ITA 464/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

va) 71,060 Interest Capitalization of WIP 4,88,000 Prior Period Income 1,05,89,848 Interest free advances 4,24,000 Interest free advances to Shri Nilesh Keshavlal Patel 61,677 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has given partial relief to the assessee. 5. Aggrieved

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. N K PROTEINS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, no question of law arises

ITA 546/AHD/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

va) 71,060 Interest Capitalization of WIP 4,88,000 Prior Period Income 1,05,89,848 Interest free advances 4,24,000 Interest free advances to Shri Nilesh Keshavlal Patel 61,677 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has given partial relief to the assessee. 5. Aggrieved

M/S. GSP CROP SCIENCE PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 892/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 250(6)Section 35

section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Therefore, following the settled position of law on the issue, we dismiss the ground no.1 of the assessee’s appeal. 24. The ground no.2 of the appeal is as under: “2. The Learned Assessing Officer and Hon. CIT (A) have erred in law and on facts in making and confirming addition of Rs.4

M/S. GSP CROP SCIENCE PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 891/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 250(6)Section 35

section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Therefore, following the settled position of law on the issue, we dismiss the ground no.1 of the assessee’s appeal. 24. The ground no.2 of the appeal is as under: “2. The Learned Assessing Officer and Hon. CIT (A) have erred in law and on facts in making and confirming addition of Rs.4

AZURE KNOWLEDGE CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 2012/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)

Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved with the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority which was decided by the Ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 4. Now, the assessee is in second appeal before us. The following grounds

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. JOHN ENERGY LTD.,, MEHSANA

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

ITA 911/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

36(1)(va). 3.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in holding that the impugned payments were not made within the prescribed time limits. It is, therefore, prayed that the addition of Rs.2,00,00,000/- on account unsecured loan as unexplained cash credit and ITA Nos.911 & 711/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Page 3 of 8 disallowance

M/S. JOHN ENERGY LTD.,,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT., MEHSANA CIRCLE,, MEHSANA

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

ITA 711/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

36(1)(va). 3.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in holding that the impugned payments were not made within the prescribed time limits. It is, therefore, prayed that the addition of Rs.2,00,00,000/- on account unsecured loan as unexplained cash credit and ITA Nos.911 & 711/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Page 3 of 8 disallowance

PARAG DAVE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1) (PREVIOUSLY CIRCLE-3(3)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 894/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Makarand V. Mahadeokarassessment Year 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Khandhar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 35(1)(ii)Section 36(1)

36(1) (va) of IT Act, 1961. The appellant may be heard in person before taking any decision in this matter.” 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of soil testing, building material testing and land survey work as well as non-constructive testing work. The assessee filed return of income on 12-08-2016 declaring total income

SHRI MUKESH RASIKLAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9, NOW CIRCLE-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 3218/AHD/2015[1993-94]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Dec 2024AY 1993-94

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh R. Shah – Party in personFor Respondent: Shri Karun Kant Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153Section 250

va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the l.T. Act, 1961. (v) In the instant case, the assessee held the amount of Rs.2,47,943/- and Rs.19,36,095/- pertaining to A.Yrs. 1992-93 and 1993-94 respectively illegally for number of years and instead of refunding the ill-gotten amount to Govt. account, the assessee chose to invest the money

SHRI MUKESH RASIKLAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9, NOW CIRCLE-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 3217/AHD/2015[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Dec 2024AY 1992-93

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh R. Shah – Party in personFor Respondent: Shri Karun Kant Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153Section 250

va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the l.T. Act, 1961. (v) In the instant case, the assessee held the amount of Rs.2,47,943/- and Rs.19,36,095/- pertaining to A.Yrs. 1992-93 and 1993-94 respectively illegally for number of years and instead of refunding the ill-gotten amount to Govt. account, the assessee chose to invest the money

H K ISPAT PVT. LTD.,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

ITA 1392/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

Section 250Section 68

purchase amount of Rs. 99,49,624/- under Section 69C of the Act, treating it as unexplained expenditure. 10.3 On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO's finding that the suppliers were non-genuine but disagreed with the 100% disallowance. Relying on jurisdictional precedents, the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to 6% of the purchase value, concluding

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

ITA 1278/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

Section 250Section 68

purchase amount of Rs. 99,49,624/- under Section 69C of the Act, treating it as unexplained expenditure. 10.3 On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO's finding that the suppliers were non-genuine but disagreed with the 100% disallowance. Relying on jurisdictional precedents, the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to 6% of the purchase value, concluding

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

ITA 1277/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

Section 250Section 68

purchase amount of Rs. 99,49,624/- under Section 69C of the Act, treating it as unexplained expenditure. 10.3 On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the AO's finding that the suppliers were non-genuine but disagreed with the 100% disallowance. Relying on jurisdictional precedents, the Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition to 6% of the purchase value, concluding