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”+ Section 194clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi238Mumbai198Karnataka99Jaipur76Chandigarh52Kolkata45Calcutta35Ahmedabad27Raipur22Chennai22Allahabad19Guwahati16Pune13Surat13Lucknow9Cuttack5Hyderabad5Indore5Bangalore5Amritsar5Jodhpur4Telangana4Nagpur2Rajkot2Visakhapatnam2

Key Topics

Section 2635Addition to Income5Section 143(3)4Section 40A(3)4Section 1483Section 2502Section 36(1)(iii)2Section 362Section 133(6)

JALALABAD SOLVEX PRIVATE LTD,JALALABAD vs. PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AMRITSAR-1, PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

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

ITA 117/ASR/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 Jan 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, C.A
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(1)

section 142(1) issued on 08- 12- reply dated 2021 asking for the information:- 02/01/2022 and 28/02/2022. 1 Brief note on your business/sources of income 2. Copy of all financial statements (P & L, Balance sheet and annexures, 26AS statement Computation of total income etc.) 1. Copy of purchase ledger 2. Copy of sales ledger 3. Details of Business relation with

2
Depreciation2
Disallowance2
Bogus Purchases2

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

bogus purchases. Reliance has been placed on the following judgments: I. Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT vs. Tejua Rohit Kumar Kapadia in SLP No. 12670/2018 reported in 94 taxmann.com 325 (SC) copy placed at pages 303 of judgment set. II. Judgment of Piyush Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No. 5599/Del/2010 copy placed

MEASAGE TAU AGRO SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2), FEROZEPUR

In the result the ground no

ITA 324/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(3)

194-C is not applicable in this case as no oral or written agreement or contract was there. 7.1. Mr Singla has respectfully relied on judgement of High Court of Punjab and Haryanain the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Chandigarhv.BhagwatiSteels[2011] 198 Taxman 275 (Punjab & Haryana); “Re: Question No. 1. On the first question, the Tribunal recorded a categorical

MEASAGE.TAU AGRO SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,FARIDKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(4), FARIDKOT

In the result the ground no

ITA 325/ASR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

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

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 40A(3)

194-C is not applicable in this case as no oral or written agreement or contract was there. 7.1. Mr Singla has respectfully relied on judgement of High Court of Punjab and Haryanain the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Chandigarhv.BhagwatiSteels[2011] 198 Taxman 275 (Punjab & Haryana); “Re: Question No. 1. On the first question, the Tribunal recorded a categorical

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