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.

60 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 54clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai829Delhi390Jaipur146Kolkata120Chennai112Bangalore98Chandigarh73Ahmedabad60Cochin57Hyderabad49Amritsar47Rajkot45Indore44Raipur38Surat36Visakhapatnam34Allahabad28Lucknow23Pune20Jodhpur18Guwahati18Nagpur18Agra17Patna14Dehradun10Cuttack4Jabalpur2Ranchi1Varanasi1Panaji1

Key Topics

Addition to Income47Section 14742Section 6836Section 14836Disallowance25Section 25021Section 143(2)20Section 143(3)19Reassessment14

BALDEVBHAI LALABHAI LUHAR,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(2), PRATYAKSHAR BHAVAN,AHMEDABAD

In the result, the ground no

ITA 888/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

54,78,655/- and the same was added to the total income. 6.3 The assessee had claimed to be engaged in the business of wholesale trading of grains viz rice, wheat etc. All purchase wills were generated vide tally software which is widely used and hence the format appears to be same. The address of the assessee mentioned

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR vs. RUDRA GLOBAL INFRA PRODUCTS LIMITED, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee, both are dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 60 · Page 1 of 3

Reopening of Assessment14
Natural Justice12
Survey u/s 133A11
ITA 1163/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

purchases only miniscule payments were made in the year under consideration without even enquiring whether further payments were made in the subsequent years, the AO concluded that the transactions of bogus. The legal position in this regard is almost settled that once a notice u/s 133(6) is issued and the parties do not respond to the said notices

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 424/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 68

section 148 of the Act. We take up this legal issue first for adjudication. Grounds Nos. 1 to 3: 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that, in this case, the assessment was reopened by the AO on the basis of the information circulated on Insight Portal of Department, wherein, it was mentioned that a search & seizure action

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 427/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 68

section 148 of the Act. We take up this legal issue first for adjudication. Grounds Nos. 1 to 3: 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that, in this case, the assessment was reopened by the AO on the basis of the information circulated on Insight Portal of Department, wherein, it was mentioned that a search & seizure action

ARCOY INDUSTRIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee are hereby allowed

ITA 425/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 68

section 148 of the Act. We take up this legal issue first for adjudication. Grounds Nos. 1 to 3: 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that, in this case, the assessment was reopened by the AO on the basis of the information circulated on Insight Portal of Department, wherein, it was mentioned that a search & seizure action

ATMIBEN ALIPTKUMAR DOSHI,,SABARKANTHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SK WARD-3, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 520/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

54,948/- under Section 68 of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR filed written submission before the CIT(A) and submitted that no cross enquiry has been carried out by the Assessing Officer before treating

SEEMA DECOLIGHT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1723/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Sethil Kumarseema Decolight Income Tax Officer, 53, Nr. Balahanuman, Vs. Ward 1(1)(3), Gandhi Road, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad – 380001. [Pan: Aaufs2781 A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Nitin Pathak, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr. D R. Date Of Hearing 12.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Pathak, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Aasudani, Sr. D R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 68

54,99,525/-); c. Addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- under section 68 of the Act towards unexplained unsecured loan. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 40,24,723/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) noted that despite

PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

ITA 991/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 133ASection 80G(5)

54,200/- on extrapolation by computing the said amount at average of March 2016. The addition is confirmed for the year under consideration on presumption and estimation is untenable in law. It be so held now, and addition be deleted. 3. The Hon. CIT Appeal erred both in law and on facts in confirming addition

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST, , AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1019/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 133ASection 80G(5)

54,200/- on extrapolation by computing the said amount at average of March 2016. The addition is confirmed for the year under consideration on presumption and estimation is untenable in law. It be so held now, and addition be deleted. 3. The Hon. CIT Appeal erred both in law and on facts in confirming addition

PARUL UNIVERSITY,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT,EXEMPTION CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

ITA 993/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 133ASection 80G(5)

54,200/- on extrapolation by computing the said amount at average of March 2016. The addition is confirmed for the year under consideration on presumption and estimation is untenable in law. It be so held now, and addition be deleted. 3. The Hon. CIT Appeal erred both in law and on facts in confirming addition

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1018/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 133ASection 80G(5)

54,200/- on extrapolation by computing the said amount at average of March 2016. The addition is confirmed for the year under consideration on presumption and estimation is untenable in law. It be so held now, and addition be deleted. 3. The Hon. CIT Appeal erred both in law and on facts in confirming addition

PARUL AROGYA SEVA MANDAL TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals are allowed

ITA 992/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 12ASection 133ASection 80G(5)

54,200/- on extrapolation by computing the said amount at average of March 2016. The addition is confirmed for the year under consideration on presumption and estimation is untenable in law. It be so held now, and addition be deleted. 3. The Hon. CIT Appeal erred both in law and on facts in confirming addition

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

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

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

THE ACIT, MEHSANA CIRCLE, MEHSANA vs. SHRI UMESH VADILAL KHAMAR, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1136/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Trivedi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 131(3)Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

bogus purchases. Rs. 2,21,48,539/- Cash payments. Rs. 1,80,13,314/- Unexplained source of Cash Deposits. Rs. 5,88,584/- Disallowed expenditure (20% of total Expenses of Rs.2,94,2918/-). and CO No.180/Ahd/2019 (By assessee) ACIT vs. Shri Umesh Vadilal Khamar Asst. Year : 2014-15 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed

JIGNASA ATULKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1140/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

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

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

bogus accommodation entries operated and managed by entry operator Shri Naresh Jain. The information also suggests that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries in manipulation of share price of M/s. Oasis Tradelink Ltd. amounting to Rs.40,95,442/- and assessee claimed Long Term Capital Gain exempt u/s. 10(38) of the Act amounting to Rs.37,24,755/-. Therefore

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RAJESHKUMAR RAMESHCHANDRA SHAH, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1074/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &
Section 250Section 68

54,28,549/- which reduced to only Rs.17,03,68,643/- during F.Y. 2016-17. It denotes decline of 87.96%. Further, it has been noted that the cash sales from 01.04.2015 to 08.11.2015 were Rs.108,35,31,632/- which decline to a figure of Rs.12,40,96,512/- during 01.04.2016 to 08.11.2016 depicting sharp fall of 88.54%. Further

MOHD. NAUSHAD ANSARI (PROP. GULSAN SEV FOODS),AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 620/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2017-18 Mohd Naushad Ansari The Ito, Ward-5(3)(3) Prop: Gulsan Sev Foods Vs. Anandnagar Road 51, Pujara Ni Chali Ahmedabad. Nr.Sarangpur Bridge Kamdar Medan – Gomtipur Ahmedabad 380 021 Pan: Aiwpa 6480 G (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri M.K. Patel, Ar Assessee By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.01.2025 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], Confirming The Addition Of Rs.28,54,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer Under Section 68 Of The Act In Respect Of Cash Deposits Made In The Bank Accounts Of The Assessee During The Demonetisation Period. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3)(3), Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”], Vide Order Dated 29.12.2019. 2. Facts Of The Case 2

For Appellant: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 68

purchase ledger, and certain confirmations, in compliance with the various notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act. The AR submitted that despite such documentary record being placed on file, the Assessing Officer concluded 4 that the assessee had failed to satisfactorily explain the source of the cash deposits made during the demonetisation period, without assigning any cogent reasons

ARDOR OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2785/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumaray Sl.

For Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR
Section 250(6)

section 68 of the Act to be satisfied, vis a vis identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. 27. We have considered the entire facts of the case and we see no merit in the addition made by the AO in the hands of AOPL of Rs. 8.5 Crs of loan received from M/s Matrix International treating it as unexplained