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.

646 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 5clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai6,222Delhi2,865Kolkata990Jaipur654Ahmedabad646Chennai585Surat463Bangalore384Pune297Chandigarh269Hyderabad246Indore208Raipur163Rajkot139Karnataka127Amritsar120Nagpur117Visakhapatnam85Lucknow81Guwahati76Cochin67Calcutta61Cuttack59Agra54Jodhpur50Patna37Allahabad35Ranchi30Telangana19Dehradun19Jabalpur14Varanasi8SC7Panaji5Orissa3Gauhati2Bombay1Rajasthan1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Addition to Income87Section 14771Section 14862Section 143(3)56Section 6849Disallowance30Section 69A29Natural Justice28Bogus Purchases

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

section 68 Rudra Global Infra Products Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst.Year –2018-19 - 8– towards entire bogus purchases, since AO made addition only on basis of said information without carrying out any further inquiry as to genuineness of purchases made by assessee, additions on account of alleged bogus purchases was rightly restricted to 5

Showing 1–20 of 646 · Page 1 of 33

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

THE JT.CIT, CIRCLE-6(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI NILESH RAMESHCHANDRA SHAH,, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 267/AHD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

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

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2010-11. I.T.A No. 267/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 2 Jt. CIT Vs. Shri Nilesh Rameshchandra Shah 2. The Registry has noted that there is a delay of 8 days in filing the above appeal by the Revenue

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 255/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
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(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

5% and 6%) was considered fair and in line with judicial precedents.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "147", "148", "143(3)", "145(3)", "250", "234A", "234B", "234C", "234D", "270A" ], "issues": "Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in rejecting the assessee's books of account and applying a 12.5% GP rate on alleged bogus 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 and the identity of the suppliers, the AO invoked the provisions

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 and the identity of the suppliers, the AO invoked the provisions

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 and the identity of the suppliers, the AO invoked the provisions

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\nby the assessee, stand dismissed

ITA 275/AHD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2025AY 2020-21
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

sections": [ "147", "145(3)", "250", "270A", "234A", "234B", "234C", "234D" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) was justified in restricting the addition made by the AO on account of alleged bogus purchases from 12.5% to 5

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

5,83,054 respectively. ITA Nos. 1379 & 1380/Ahd/2016 4 . A.Ys. 2010-11-2011-12 As per the information available with this office, the above mentioned transactions are bogus purchase according to Maharashtra Sales Tax Deptt, Mumbai. The evidence with respect to bogus nature of transaction reveals that assessee has not disclosed correct financial transaction in his return of income. Further

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\nby the assessee, stand dismissed

ITA 274/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2025AY 2018-19
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

purchases from entities flagged as bogus suppliers. The Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the books of account under Section 145(3) and applied a 12.5% gross profit (GP) rate. The CIT(A) reduced this rate to 5

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)

5. Ground No.2 relates to addition of Rs.6,80,400/- made on account of bogus purchase of cut and polished diamonds in his business, which was confirmed by the ld.CIT(A). 6. The ld.counsel for the assessee pointed out that before the ld.CIT(A), besides challenging entire addition, an alternative prayer had been made that only the profit embedded

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)

Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained investments (Bogus purchases) -Assessment year 2007-08 - Assessee was in business of manufacturing and exports of de-oiled cake, starch, glucose and cotton yarn - Assessing Officer examined various purchases made by assessee and noted that entire purchases made from one 'V were bogus and added entire amount to total income

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)

Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained investments (Bogus purchases) -Assessment year 2007-08 - Assessee was in business of manufacturing and exports of de-oiled cake, starch, glucose and cotton yarn - Assessing Officer examined various purchases made by assessee and noted that entire purchases made from one 'V were bogus and added entire amount to total income

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)

Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained investments (Bogus purchases) -Assessment year 2007-08 - Assessee was in business of manufacturing and exports of de-oiled cake, starch, glucose and cotton yarn - Assessing Officer examined various purchases made by assessee and noted that entire purchases made from one 'V were bogus and added entire amount to total income

THE JT. CIT, RANGE-9,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. UNIQUE METROPOILS,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 3140/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Mar 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C.S. Sharma, Sr. D.R
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

bogus purchases calculated at 12.5% of the purchases which is excessive when no such disallowance is called. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee reiterated that assessee had provided all details and evidences and vide reply dated 24-02- 2014, copy of PAN card of parties, confirmation of ledger account duly signed by parties, copies of invoices and delivery challan

M/S. UNIQUE METROPOLIS,,AHMEDABAD vs. JT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,RANGE-9,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

ITA 3093/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Mar 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri C.S. Sharma, Sr. D.R
Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

bogus purchases calculated at 12.5% of the purchases which is excessive when no such disallowance is called. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee reiterated that assessee had provided all details and evidences and vide reply dated 24-02- 2014, copy of PAN card of parties, confirmation of ledger account duly signed by parties, copies of invoices and delivery challan

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

5. Subsequently the Pr. CIT from the assessment records observed that the assessment framed under section 147 is erroneous insofar prejudicial to the interest of Revenue for the reason that once it was held by the AO that the purchase of standing tree from M/s Greenwell Orchard was bogus

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: I.T.A

BHAGAT MARKETING PVT LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. PCIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, in light of the above observations and the judicial precedents on the subject, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 921/AHD/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 263

bogus purchases in accordance with law and thus revision under section. 263 is nothing but a change of opinion and hence order u/s. 263 is bad in law. 2. The directions given to AO in para 7, 7.1 and 8 of order under section 263 by the ld. Pr.CIT are already carried

THE DY. CIT, (OSD)-I, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KINTECH SYNERGY PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 2378/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Apr 2019AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)

Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 7967 - Undisclosed investments [Bogus purchases] - Assessment year 2005-06 - Assessee was engaged in business of trading in finished fabrics - Assessing Officer found that concerned parties from whom material was purchased were not found at their addresses and held that purchases made by assessee were bogus - Accordingly, he made disallowance - Tribunal found that though

THE DY. CIT, (OSD)-I, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KINTECH SYNERGY PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 2377/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Apr 2019AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)

Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 7967 - Undisclosed investments [Bogus purchases] - Assessment year 2005-06 - Assessee was engaged in business of trading in finished fabrics - Assessing Officer found that concerned parties from whom material was purchased were not found at their addresses and held that purchases made by assessee were bogus - Accordingly, he made disallowance - Tribunal found that though