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.

204 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 69clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,494Delhi992Jaipur345Kolkata279Chennai247Ahmedabad204Bangalore155Surat135Chandigarh128Pune110Karnataka106Hyderabad99Indore80Amritsar61Cochin61Raipur56Nagpur51Rajkot44Calcutta38Cuttack36Visakhapatnam34Guwahati34Jodhpur28Allahabad26Lucknow26Agra20Patna8Dehradun8Telangana7Jabalpur5Ranchi5SC3Varanasi2Panaji1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Addition to Income82Section 14761Section 143(3)55Disallowance50Section 6846Section 14839Penalty27Section 6924Section 25024Section 43B

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)

purchase towards its possible profit, we do not find any reason to entertain the appeal. In the result, Tax Appeal is dismissed. (b) Commissioner of Income-tax -II v. Gujarat Ambuja Export Ltd. [2014] 43 taxmann.com 244 (Gujarat) I. Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained investments (Bogus

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

The appeal of the Revenue are allowed

Showing 1–20 of 204 · Page 1 of 11

...
22
Section 271(1)(c)21
Reopening of Assessment19
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)

purchase towards its possible profit, we do not find any reason to entertain the appeal. In the result, Tax Appeal is dismissed. (b) Commissioner of Income-tax -II v. Gujarat Ambuja Export Ltd. [2014] 43 taxmann.com 244 (Gujarat) I. Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained investments (Bogus

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)

purchase towards its possible profit, we do not find any reason to entertain the appeal. In the result, Tax Appeal is dismissed. (b) Commissioner of Income-tax -II v. Gujarat Ambuja Export Ltd. [2014] 43 taxmann.com 244 (Gujarat) I. Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained investments (Bogus

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

section 69 of the I.T.Act, 1961." ITA Nos. 1379 & 1380/Ahd/2016 20 . A.Ys. 2010-11-2011-12 4. Against the addition of 12.5% of the total purchase, assessee preferred first statutory appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who held that the undisclosed income of the appellant should be assessed @ 10% of purchase shown to have been made by him from

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)

purchases though not verifiable the utilization of the material has been explained. iii. CIT v Bholanath Polyfab (P) Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj.):- Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 7967 - Undisclosed investments [Bogus

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)

purchases though not verifiable the utilization of the material has been explained. iii. CIT v Bholanath Polyfab (P) Ltd. (2013) 355 ITR 290 (Guj.):- Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 7967 - Undisclosed investments [Bogus

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)

purchases as bogus and made addition to assessee's income under section 69 of the Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) estimated

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. M/S. ULTRA TECH TRANSMISSION,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

ITA 395/AHD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Nov 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R

purchases may be disallowed, keeping into consideration the profit offered to tax by the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee had calculated NP at 16.09% of the Turnover. Accordingly, considering the observations made by the Ld. Assessing Officer in assessment order regarding the nature of sub-contracting expenses and looking into the totality of facts of the instant

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. M/S. ULTRATECH TRANSMISSION PVT. LTD, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

ITA 1661/AHD/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Nov 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R

purchases may be disallowed, keeping into consideration the profit offered to tax by the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee had calculated NP at 16.09% of the Turnover. Accordingly, considering the observations made by the Ld. Assessing Officer in assessment order regarding the nature of sub-contracting expenses and looking into the totality of facts of the instant

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. ULTRA TECH TRANSMISSION,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

ITA 393/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Nov 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R

purchases may be disallowed, keeping into consideration the profit offered to tax by the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee had calculated NP at 16.09% of the Turnover. Accordingly, considering the observations made by the Ld. Assessing Officer in assessment order regarding the nature of sub-contracting expenses and looking into the totality of facts of the instant

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. M/S. ULTRA TECH TRANSMISSION,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

ITA 394/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Nov 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R

purchases may be disallowed, keeping into consideration the profit offered to tax by the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee had calculated NP at 16.09% of the Turnover. Accordingly, considering the observations made by the Ld. Assessing Officer in assessment order regarding the nature of sub-contracting expenses and looking into the totality of facts of the instant

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, BARODA vs. M/S. ULTRA TECH TRANSMISSION,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for assessment year 2016-17

ITA 396/AHD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Nov 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R

purchases may be disallowed, keeping into consideration the profit offered to tax by the assessee. During the year under consideration, the assessee had calculated NP at 16.09% of the Turnover. Accordingly, considering the observations made by the Ld. Assessing Officer in assessment order regarding the nature of sub-contracting expenses and looking into the totality of facts of the instant

SHRI HARSHAD JASWANTLAL SONI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL.CIT.,A'BAD RANGE-2,, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 2885/AHD/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Oct 2019AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 14A

69,875/- out of total addition of Rs.1,16,98,747/- without proper consideration and appreciation of the facts of the case. In view of facts and submissions filed as well as legal position, the impugned addition on account of bogus purchases ought to have been restricted to the profit @ 5% on such purchases already shown and offered

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

Section 40 A(3) the alternate plea raised by the appellant has not been adjudicated upon. In my opinion the case of live stock exporter is on much more stronger looting than that of a dealer in meat. ITA Nos.1115 & 962/Ahd/2019 & CO No.10/Ahd/2022(in ITA No. 1115/A/19) Asst. Years –2012-13 & 2014-15 10.6 Further, remand report as submitted

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

Section 40 A(3) the alternate plea raised by the appellant has not been adjudicated upon. In my opinion the case of live stock exporter is on much more stronger looting than that of a dealer in meat. ITA Nos.1115 & 962/Ahd/2019 & CO No.10/Ahd/2022(in ITA No. 1115/A/19) Asst. Years –2012-13 & 2014-15 10.6 Further, remand report as submitted

DCIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ALPESHKUMAR C.PATEL, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1991/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1908/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Alpeshkumar C. Patel, A.C.I.T., 503, Milestone Building, Vs. Circle-3(3), Drive In Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380052. Pan: Aeapp9489G

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Pratap Singh CIT. D.R with Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.D.R
Section 41(1)Section 54F

bogus. The observation of the AO that amount credited in parties account immediately withdrawn or transferred is not based on any tangible materials. ITA nos.1908& 1991/AHD/2018 Asstt. Year 2011-12 9 9. The allegation that the assessee was holding more than one residential property is also not factually correct. As such the flat at Smita Tower purchased

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DEVRAJ INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all three appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 2441/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanisl.

For Appellant: Shrui A.C. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80

section uses the words “derived from” as against “attributable to”. The Ld. AO observed that the words “derived from” are much narrower than the words “attributable to” and the benefit of deduction is available in respect of the income of the first degree only. Placing reliance on Pandian Chemicals Ltd. 262 ITR 278 (SC) and Sterling Foods

JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DEVRAJ INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all three appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 1607/AHD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyanisl.

For Appellant: Shrui A.C. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 80

section uses the words “derived from” as against “attributable to”. The Ld. AO observed that the words “derived from” are much narrower than the words “attributable to” and the benefit of deduction is available in respect of the income of the first degree only. Placing reliance on Pandian Chemicals Ltd. 262 ITR 278 (SC) and Sterling Foods

M/S. G.H. VIJAPURA,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY.CIT, SABARKANTHA CIRCLE,, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2699/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Dec 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2699/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 1St M/S.G.H. Vijapura, Vs. Dcit, Sabarkantha Circle Floor, Aml Centre Himatnagar. Mahakali Caves Road Andher, Mumbai 93. Pan : Aabfg 3656 M

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Thakker, ARFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

section 143(3) on 59.9.2011 at the total income of Rs.4,42,69,335/-. The AO thereafter got information from VAT Department of Mumbai exhibiting the fact that the assessee has obtained bills for bogus purchases

THE ACIT,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1118/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 14ASection 35DSection 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.42,48,117/- (i.e. 25%) out of total purchases of Rs.1,69,92,471/-. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both in law and on facts of the case, in confirming disallowance of Rs.14,62,818/- being irrecoverable deposits written off in books of account in respect of Earnest Money Deposit, Advance