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.

5 results for “bogus purchases”+ Survey u/s 133Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai851Delhi409Jaipur209Kolkata163Bangalore85Surat76Chennai65Ahmedabad52Chandigarh48Indore46Hyderabad45Pune38Guwahati33Raipur30Visakhapatnam27Rajkot26Agra17Cuttack15Lucknow13Patna10Jodhpur8Nagpur8Amritsar6Allahabad5Jabalpur3Panaji2Dehradun2Cochin2Telangana1Varanasi1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 153A10Addition to Income5Undisclosed Income3Disallowance3Section 1322Section 402TDS2Bogus Purchases2

M/S KESARWANI MARKETING (P) LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT (OSD), ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 154/ALLD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad01 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Shri UtkarshFor Respondent: Shri Ramendra Kumar Vishwakarma CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 40

bogus liabilities is incorrect and the entire discussions in the relevant Para are contrary to the actual facts of the case when the appellant furnished documents and proofs also but the two lower authorities failed to consider the issue in appropriate manner hence the addition as made and confirmed is incorrect in the facts and circumstances of the case

KESARWANI MARKETING(P) LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result appeal filed by assessee in ITA No

ITA 373/ALLD/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad01 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. Praveen Godbole, C.A. & Shri UtkarshFor Respondent: Shri Ramendra Kumar Vishwakarma CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 40

bogus liabilities is incorrect and the entire discussions in the relevant Para are contrary to the actual facts of the case when the appellant furnished documents and proofs also but the two lower authorities failed to consider the issue in appropriate manner hence the addition as made and confirmed is incorrect in the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S KESARWANI ZARDA BHANDAR,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,, ALLAHABAD

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

ITA 379/ALLD/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 153A

133A in the business premises of Sarita Industries on 08.09.2009, Prop. Sri Rakesh Narayan Gupta categorically stated that, office go-down and residence are all situated at 105/682, Chandrika Devi Chauraha, Deputy Ka Padao, Kanpur. The A.O. also states that no staff was found during the survey. The A.O. also conducted inquiry through her Inspector, who submitted the report that

ACIT,, ALLAHABAD vs. KESARWANI ZARDA BHANDAR,, ALLAHABAD

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

ITA 12/ALLD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 153A

133A in the business premises of Sarita Industries on 08.09.2009, Prop. Sri Rakesh Narayan Gupta categorically stated that, office go-down and residence are all situated at 105/682, Chandrika Devi Chauraha, Deputy Ka Padao, Kanpur. The A.O. also states that no staff was found during the survey. The A.O. also conducted inquiry through her Inspector, who submitted the report that

M/S BHOLA FOOD PRODUCTS(P) LTD.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT. CIT,(OSD),, ALLAHABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee for ay: 2005-06 and 2009-10

ITA 66/ALLD/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad03 Mar 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Mr. Praveen Godbole, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Debashish Chanda, CIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 153A

purchasing gifts as per sale promotion scheme was made in subsequent year, which ledger is placed in PB at pages 32 to 39. It was submitted by ld. Counsel for the assessee before the Bench that the AO treated these expenses as bogus expenses , while ld. CIT(A) has treated the same as contingent and provisions not made properly