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.

7 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 69Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi80Jaipur53Chandigarh31Bangalore17Hyderabad16Agra15Rajkot12Mumbai11Kolkata8Chennai7Ahmedabad7Visakhapatnam5Indore3Jodhpur3Raipur2Lucknow2Jabalpur1Surat1Pune1

Key Topics

Section 687Addition to Income7Section 80I6Section 1324Section 250(6)3Section 153A3Section 139(1)3Section 143(2)3Section 69C3

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

section 153A of the Act is to be treated as return\nfiled under section 139(1) of the Act. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee\nhas borrowed this proposition to contend that accordingly fresh\nclaims can be made in returns filed u/s 153A of the Act. But, we find,\nthat these decisions have been rendered while addressing completely\ndifferent issue, relating

Bogus/Accommodation Entry3
Unexplained Cash Credit3
Reopening of Assessment2

AKAR LAMINATORS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1) (ASSTT. ORDER PASSING AUTHORITY) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(1) (CURRENT JURISDICTION), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 716/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT D.R. & Ms. Saumya Pandey
Section 144Section 148Section 68

bogus sales. But the revenue has not done so. On this count only, the addition made by the AO is not sustainable. 14. Nevertheless, we note that the assessee has furnished the necessary details as discussed above in the order of the ld. CIT-A, meaning thereby, the assessee has discharged the onus cast upon it under the provisions

AKAR LAMINATORS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1) (ASTT. ORDER PASSSING AUTHORITY) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(1) (CURRENT JURISDICTION), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 717/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, A.RFor Respondent: Shri H. Phani Raju, CIT D.R. & Ms. Saumya Pandey
Section 144Section 148Section 68

bogus sales. But the revenue has not done so. On this count only, the addition made by the AO is not sustainable. 14. Nevertheless, we note that the assessee has furnished the necessary details as discussed above in the order of the ld. CIT-A, meaning thereby, the assessee has discharged the onus cast upon it under the provisions

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1)(1) VADODARA, VADODARA vs. DAMODARDAS MOHANLAL CHOKSHI, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 554/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Adv. & Shri ParinFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT D.R
Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69B

69B amounting to Rs. 2,92,90,122/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. D.R. submitted that the CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the additionof Rs. 12,83,75,566/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, 1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SHWETA MANISH JAIN, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1594/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None
Section 147Section 14ASection 69C

bogus accommodation entries amounting to Rs. 10,00,059/- from the said party and held that the assessee failed to furnish corroborative proof to rebut the allegation. 4. In appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer did not provide the assessee with any documentary evidence regarding the alleged transaction, did not permit cross-examination of the alleged entry

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI UMANG H. THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 2548/AHD/2008[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2150/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Dharmadev House, Income-Tax, Shyamal Cross Road, Satellite, Central Circle 1(1), Ahmedabad – 380015 Ahmedabad Pan : Aavpt 8621 R आयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2548/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. 305, Sahajanand Plaza, Bhatta Income-Tax, Ch Ar Rasta, Paldi, Ahmedabad Central Circle 1(1), Pan : Aavpt 8621 R Ahmedabad अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" यथ" िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, Cit-Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR &For Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

bogus, and accordingly he treated the source of investment in jewellery to be unexplained and added the same to the income of the assessee. While doing so, he noted in his order that the withdrawals made from his capital account were surely not used for investment in jewellery, but were used for his personal purposes. The personal expenditures and other

SHRI UMANG HIRALAL THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 2150/AHD/2008[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2150/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Dharmadev House, Income-Tax, Shyamal Cross Road, Satellite, Central Circle 1(1), Ahmedabad – 380015 Ahmedabad Pan : Aavpt 8621 R आयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 2548/Ahd/2008 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 बनाम Shri Umang Hiralal Thakkar, The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. 305, Sahajanand Plaza, Bhatta Income-Tax, Ch Ar Rasta, Paldi, Ahmedabad Central Circle 1(1), Pan : Aavpt 8621 R Ahmedabad अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" यथ" िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, Cit-Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, AR &For Respondent: Shri Akhilendra Pratap Yadav, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

bogus, and accordingly he treated the source of investment in jewellery to be unexplained and added the same to the income of the assessee. While doing so, he noted in his order that the withdrawals made from his capital account were surely not used for investment in jewellery, but were used for his personal purposes. The personal expenditures and other