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.

35 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 145clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai964Delhi520Jaipur225Ahmedabad143Surat137Kolkata125Chandigarh106Karnataka99Chennai99Bangalore76Raipur61Cochin57Pune52Amritsar35Calcutta35Nagpur33Agra32Rajkot29Jodhpur28Hyderabad28Allahabad26Indore24Lucknow22Cuttack21Guwahati14Patna11Visakhapatnam7Dehradun4Ranchi3Panaji3SC2Telangana2Varanasi1

Key Topics

Addition to Income34Section 143(3)27Section 80I20Disallowance19Section 145(3)18Section 14818Section 25013Section 250(6)12Deduction11

MESERS SUPERTECH FORGINGS(INDIA) PVT.LTD.,JALANDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE IV, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 563/ASR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Aug 2021AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 147

purchases made from parties could not be termed as bogus if the same have been accepted in the subsequent years. The relevant text is being reproduced for your ready reference: - Section 145

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, FARIDKOT, BSNL BUILDING vs. M/S VOHRA SOLVEX PVT. LTD, SADIQ ROAD

In the result, C.O. filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 588/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

Showing 1–20 of 35 · Page 1 of 2

Section 3210
Section 43(1)10
Depreciation10
For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69C

purchases as bogus under section 69C: SLP dismissed. 10 I.T.A. No. 588/Asr/2024 & Ors Vohra Solvex Pvt Ltd. v. ITO & Ors (iii) Judgement iin the case of PCIT vs. Nitin Ramdeoji Lohia as reported in ( [2022] 145

SH. VIKRAM JAIN,AMRITSAR. vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes on the terms afore-stated

ITA 336/ASR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar01 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 336/Asr/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. R. K. Magow (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)

section 145(3), which we shall, therefore, examine next. 3.2 Toward this, we, on the conspectus of the case, do not find the assessee to have established the genuineness of his purchase and sale transactions during the year. Our reasons for the same are as under: a). the assessee before the custom authorities submitted that his books of account were

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR vs. SHRI BHUPINDER SINGH. M/S NOVELTY SWEETS, AMRITSAR

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

ITA 196/ASR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 145(3)

145(3) whereas it was evident from records and statement of the assessee that he had indulged in unaccounted sales which the AO had mentioned in his assessment order? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by allowing the bogus losses to be set off with the amount

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), JAMMU vs. SH. NEERAJ AGGARWAL , JAMMU

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 349/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar06 Aug 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 349/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Alok Kumar, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sh. S. Krishnan (Adv.)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145(3)Section 80

145. (1) – (2)……………… (3) Where the Assessing Officer is not satisfied about the correctness or completeness of the accounts of the assessee, or where the method of accounting provided in sub-section (1) or accounting standards as notified under sub-section (2), have not been regularly followed by the assessee, the Assessing Officer may make an assessment in the manner

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR vs. SMT. JYOTI SAROOP GROVER, MALOUT

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 434/ASR/2024[2021]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Aug 2025

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 335/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ms. Jyoti Saroop Grover Dcit - Central Circle (Prop. Ms. Sant Metal Industries) Amritsar बनाम/ Vs. Sekhu Road, Ward No 7 Punjab-143001 Malout, Punjab – 152 107 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajrpg-8929-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 434/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Dcit - Central Circle Ms. Jyoti Saroop Grover Amritsar (Prop. Ms. Sant Metal Industries) बनाम/ Vs. Punjab-143001 Sekhu Road, Ward No 7 Malout, Punjab – 152 107 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajrpg-8929-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) –Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) –Ld.ARFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

145(3) and estimated gross profit of Rs.1% on entire sale of Rs.17.21 Crores which worked out to be Rs.17.21 Lacs. Aggrieved, the assessee as well as revenue is in further appeal before us. Our findings and Adjudication 4. From the case records, it emerges that the assessee carries out manufacturing activity since the year 2004. The substantial purchases made

JYOTI SAROOP GROVER PROP. MS SANT METAL INDUSTRIES SEKHU ROAD, WARD 7 MALOUT,PUNJAB vs. THE AO NFAC DELHI JURISDICTIONAL AO THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE AMRITSAR, PUNJAB

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 335/ASR/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Udayan Das Gupta, Jm 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 335/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ms. Jyoti Saroop Grover Dcit - Central Circle (Prop. Ms. Sant Metal Industries) Amritsar बनाम/ Vs. Sekhu Road, Ward No 7 Punjab-143001 Malout, Punjab – 152 107 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajrpg-8929-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 434/Asr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Dcit - Central Circle Ms. Jyoti Saroop Grover Amritsar (Prop. Ms. Sant Metal Industries) बनाम/ Vs. Punjab-143001 Sekhu Road, Ward No 7 Malout, Punjab – 152 107 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajrpg-8929-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) –Ld.Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18-08-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22 Arises Out Of An Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Ludhiana

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) –Ld.ARFor Respondent: Sh. Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

145(3) and estimated gross profit of Rs.1% on entire sale of Rs.17.21 Crores which worked out to be Rs.17.21 Lacs. Aggrieved, the assessee as well as revenue is in further appeal before us. Our findings and Adjudication 4. From the case records, it emerges that the assessee carries out manufacturing activity since the year 2004. The substantial purchases made

SHRI FAROOQ AHMAD AHANGAR,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(1), SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 606/ASR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Ms. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 68

purchase has been accepted as genuine and a deduction therefore has been allowed. Therefore, it is prayed, that additions confirmed by CIT(A) may please be deleted.” 16. We have heard the Addl. CIT D.R., perused the material on records, written submission filed by the assessee and the judgments relied upon. It Farooq Ahmad Ahangar v. ITO is undisputed fact

SHRI FAROOQ AHMAD AHANGAR,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFICER, WARD-3(1, SRINAGAR

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 607/ASR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: None (Written submission)For Respondent: Ms. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 68

purchase has been accepted as genuine and a deduction therefore has been allowed. Therefore, it is prayed, that additions confirmed by CIT(A) may please be deleted.” 16. We have heard the Addl. CIT D.R., perused the material on records, written submission filed by the assessee and the judgments relied upon. It Farooq Ahmad Ahangar v. ITO is undisputed fact

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

ITA 292/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)

section 145(3) of the Act 61 , with estimation of total income @ 8% on Gross receipts of Rs. 44.71 crores (excluding the receipts of Rs. 6.69 crores from DRAIPL group) and the disputed sub contract receipt of Rs. 6.69 crores has been separately added back u/s 68 of the Act 61. 7.2 The relevant paragraph of the order is reproduced

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

ITA 293/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250(6)

section 145(3) of the Act 61 , with estimation of total income @ 8% on Gross receipts of Rs. 44.71 crores (excluding the receipts of Rs. 6.69 crores from DRAIPL group) and the disputed sub contract receipt of Rs. 6.69 crores has been separately added back u/s 68 of the Act 61. 7.2 The relevant paragraph of the order is reproduced

MEASAGE BHAI INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, MOGA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 358/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

145(3) and, the AO raised no doubt, about the sales and closing stock nor any defect have been pointed out in day to day maintenance of books of accounts, in quantitative details and no enquiry have been made by the AO from the ‘Toll Barriers’ and, as such, the whole basis for making the addition on, merits was surmises

YADAV RICE MILLS,MUKTSAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, BATHINDA, BATHINDA

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

ITA 415/ASR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar17 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Ms. Deepali Aggarwal
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68Section 69C

section 143(1), Assessing Officer could initiate reassessment proceedings subsequently on basis of information supplied by Investigation wing of department that assessee had taken bogus purchase entries from two parties. 6 I.T.A. No. 415/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (ii) Backbone Projects Ltd. vs. ACIT [2021] 131 taxmann.com 80 (Gujarat) (iii) Priya Blue Industries [2021] 130 taxmann.com 492 (Gujarat

SMT. KIRAN MAHAJAN,JAMMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2) JAMMU

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 319/ASR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 319 & S.A. 15/(Asr)/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. A. N. Mishra (D.R.)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

bogus sundry creditors without rejecting the books of accounts and without invoking the provisions of section 145(3) of the IT Act, 1961. As such the addition made is bad and is illegal in the eyes of law and the same may be deleted.’ 4. Before us, the thrust of the assessee’s case was that no fresh notices were

HIMALYA SPINNING MILLS,AMRITSAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 2 (1), AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 88/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 115BSection 145Section 68

145/- was sold in lesser rate i.e. between The selling price of the the range of Rs.105/- to Rs. 140/- per kg. goods is driven by many There is no reason to sell the shoddy yarn factors at the time of in lesser rate. sale including the age of goods. The goods sold was unsold for long Moreover the assessee

AAPNA MARBLE,G T ROAD BHUCHO KALAN vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE II BATHINDA

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

ITA 639/ASR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, C.A
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250

bogus ( forced to be prepared at site document, as evident from the contents of para 6 and 7 of the affidavit ) and has no relation to the existing business of the assessee and the names depicted in such list of debtors , are all fictitious and the said persons named therein , do not simply exist . 14. He further submitted that

M/S MOVIE BOX RECORDS P. LTD ,JALNDHAR vs. D.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, JALNDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA 263/Asr/2017 is

ITA 256/ASR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 69

section 69 of the Income Tax Act. I.T.A. Nos. 251 to 256/Asr/2017 4 &I.T.A. No. 263/Asr/2017 3. That sans any corroborative evidence found in search, revealing any purchase/sale outside the books of account to effectuate such large scale transactions, a mere certificate given to PPL to facilitate receipt of royalty, was highly insufficient to uphold the impugned addition, more

D.C.I.T , CENTRAL CIRCLE - II,, JALANDHAR vs. M/S MOVIE BOX RECORDS PVT. LTD., JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA 263/Asr/2017 is

ITA 263/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 69

section 69 of the Income Tax Act. I.T.A. Nos. 251 to 256/Asr/2017 4 &I.T.A. No. 263/Asr/2017 3. That sans any corroborative evidence found in search, revealing any purchase/sale outside the books of account to effectuate such large scale transactions, a mere certificate given to PPL to facilitate receipt of royalty, was highly insufficient to uphold the impugned addition, more

M/S MOVIE BOX RECORDS P. LTD ,JALNDHAR vs. D.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, JALNDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA 263/Asr/2017 is

ITA 253/ASR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 69

section 69 of the Income Tax Act. I.T.A. Nos. 251 to 256/Asr/2017 4 &I.T.A. No. 263/Asr/2017 3. That sans any corroborative evidence found in search, revealing any purchase/sale outside the books of account to effectuate such large scale transactions, a mere certificate given to PPL to facilitate receipt of royalty, was highly insufficient to uphold the impugned addition, more

M/S MOVIE BOX RECORDS P LTD ,JALANDHAR vs. D.C.I.T, CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA 263/Asr/2017 is

ITA 252/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar10 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 69

section 69 of the Income Tax Act. I.T.A. Nos. 251 to 256/Asr/2017 4 &I.T.A. No. 263/Asr/2017 3. That sans any corroborative evidence found in search, revealing any purchase/sale outside the books of account to effectuate such large scale transactions, a mere certificate given to PPL to facilitate receipt of royalty, was highly insufficient to uphold the impugned addition, more