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.

149 results for “bogus purchases”+ Cash Depositclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,576Delhi1,234Chennai382Jaipur329Kolkata315Ahmedabad215Bangalore149Chandigarh143Indore102Surat102Hyderabad85Pune72Nagpur68Rajkot66Cochin61Amritsar57Calcutta37Visakhapatnam37Guwahati35Raipur33Lucknow33Jodhpur28Allahabad25Agra22Cuttack19Karnataka9Varanasi8Patna6Jabalpur6Panaji3Dehradun3Telangana3Ranchi3Orissa2SC1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Addition to Income80Section 14864Section 153A63Section 143(3)39Section 6839Section 13236Disallowance35Section 133A29Section 153C29

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , MANGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 431/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

cash, gold, etc. It is, obviously to know the source thereof, on the spot. Beyond that, it is not a limited licence, to an authority, to script the financial obituary of an assessee.” “19. At the cost of repetition, we observe that if the statement made during the course of search remains the same, it can constitute the basis

Showing 1–20 of 149 · Page 1 of 8

...
Section 132(4)24
Bogus Purchases13
Penalty11

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 63/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shi V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

cash as they do not have bank accounts. 7.8 Further during the course of survey (Answer to Q. No.12) details of purchases recorded in the computer of the firm containing date wise purchases made by the appellant from Malpe were found. The partner stated that the purchases under the column "MalpePur Actual" represents the actual purchases for which payments have

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 65/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shi V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

cash as they do not have bank accounts. 7.8 Further during the course of survey (Answer to Q. No.12) details of purchases recorded in the computer of the firm containing date wise purchases made by the appellant from Malpe were found. The partner stated that the purchases under the column "MalpePur Actual" represents the actual purchases for which payments have

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 62/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shi V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

cash as they do not have bank accounts. 7.8 Further during the course of survey (Answer to Q. No.12) details of purchases recorded in the computer of the firm containing date wise purchases made by the appellant from Malpe were found. The partner stated that the purchases under the column "MalpePur Actual" represents the actual purchases for which payments have

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 64/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shi V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

cash as they do not have bank accounts. 7.8 Further during the course of survey (Answer to Q. No.12) details of purchases recorded in the computer of the firm containing date wise purchases made by the appellant from Malpe were found. The partner stated that the purchases under the column "MalpePur Actual" represents the actual purchases for which payments have

M/S. YASHASWI FISH MEAL AND OIL COMPANY,UDUPI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 66/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shi V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 131Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

cash as they do not have bank accounts. 7.8 Further during the course of survey (Answer to Q. No.12) details of purchases recorded in the computer of the firm containing date wise purchases made by the appellant from Malpe were found. The partner stated that the purchases under the column "MalpePur Actual" represents the actual purchases for which payments have

M/S ANANTHA REFINERY PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1553/BANG/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Pradeep &For Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

deposited in the account of the assessee, said purchases cannot be held to be bogus. ' (ii) In the case of DCIT v. Adinath Industries reported in 252 ITR 476 (Guj), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held that .... Simply because the bank account of seller and purchaser was in the same bank and the amount credited in the purchaser

M/S ANANTHA REFINERY PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1554/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Pradeep &For Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

deposited in the account of the assessee, said purchases cannot be held to be bogus. ' (ii) In the case of DCIT v. Adinath Industries reported in 252 ITR 476 (Guj), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held that .... Simply because the bank account of seller and purchaser was in the same bank and the amount credited in the purchaser

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. AURA JEWELS, BANGALORE

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 684/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 68

deposits during the demonetization period. It is an admitted fact that assessee is engaged in the business of trading of electrical wires and trading in electrical equipments, products etc. find assessee has placed on record the details of cash sales made [a copy of which is placed in paper book] and it contains the details namely the date of sale

M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 132/BANG/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

cash drawals of the vendors. f. The LAO and CIT(A) did not adduce any evidence to demonstrate that the purchases were bogus apart from the statement of Sri Janardhan. No efforts have been made by the LAO and CIT(A) to demonstrate that the purchases were bogus. g. The fact that Sri Janardhan was maintaining books of accounts

M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 134/BANG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

cash drawals of the vendors. f. The LAO and CIT(A) did not adduce any evidence to demonstrate that the purchases were bogus apart from the statement of Sri Janardhan. No efforts have been made by the LAO and CIT(A) to demonstrate that the purchases were bogus. g. The fact that Sri Janardhan was maintaining books of accounts

M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 131/BANG/2023[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2023AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

cash drawals of the vendors. f. The LAO and CIT(A) did not adduce any evidence to demonstrate that the purchases were bogus apart from the statement of Sri Janardhan. No efforts have been made by the LAO and CIT(A) to demonstrate that the purchases were bogus. g. The fact that Sri Janardhan was maintaining books of accounts

M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 133/BANG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

cash drawals of the vendors. f. The LAO and CIT(A) did not adduce any evidence to demonstrate that the purchases were bogus apart from the statement of Sri Janardhan. No efforts have been made by the LAO and CIT(A) to demonstrate that the purchases were bogus. g. The fact that Sri Janardhan was maintaining books of accounts

M/S. HARIS MARINE PRODUCTS,MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are\nallowed

ITA 611/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 133ASection 153C

cash to Shri Tarun Goyal and he, after depositing\nthe same in the bank account of various companies, issued cheques for\nshare application money. On these facts, the decision of Hon'ble\nJurisdictional High Court in the case of Harjeev Aggarwal (supra)\nwould be squarely applicable. Therefore, we hold that the statement of\nShri Tarun Goyal cannot be used against

M/S. HARIS MARINE PRODUCTS,MANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , MANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are\nallowed

ITA 610/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2016-17
Section 132Section 133ASection 153C

cash to Shri Tarun Goyal and he, after depositing\nthe same in the bank account of various companies, issued cheques for\nshare application money. On these facts, the decision of Hon'ble\nJurisdictional High Court in the case of Harjeev Aggarwal (supra)\nwould be squarely applicable. Therefore, we hold that the statement of\nShri Tarun Goyal cannot be used against

SRI C ANIL RAHASHEKAR ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1733/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri G.S Prashanth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 153C

bogus entry as discussed in Para-I of this order. It is also a known fact that iron ore found in the area of business operation of the firm has been found to be traded illegally excavated without proper license from the department of Mines and Geology and clearances from ministry of Environment and Forests. In the light

NITIN KUMAR BOHRA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 340/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.T. Seshadri, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 234ASection 250Section 69

cash deposits with cogent material. The assessee has issued sale bills, but there is no name and address or contact no., PAN of the prospective buyers. Therefore the sales shown by the assessee are doubtful and the ld. FAA has also doubted the purchases of the assessee. The business of the assessee started in the month of October

UNITED ,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DAVANGERE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 69/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Smt. Prathiba, Advocate
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 37(1)

cash deposits are concerned. The Ld.AR further submitted that the AO had erred in treating the purchases made from M/s. Advance Computers & Mobile India Pvt. Ltd. as bogus

ITO, WARD-1, MADIKERI vs. SRI. M.L. KRUPAL, KODAGU

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

ITA 382/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2005-06 Late M.L. Krupal M/S. Prime Commodities Blv Complex Somwarpet 571 236 Represented By Legal Heir Suvina Krupal Ito Vs. C/O Shreehari Kutsa, Advocate Ward-1 No.2B, 2Nd Floor, ‘Solus’, Madikeri 1St Cross J.C. Road Bangalore 560 027

For Appellant: Smt. Harsha J., A.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R

purchases were not disputed by the AO. Hence, we are also deleting the addition of Rs. 11,88,000/- under head bogus creditors and accordingly, this ground of appeal is also allowed. 14. Ground No. 9 as reproduced at Para No. 3 with regard to additions amounting to Rs. 3,50,06,130/- treated as unexplained source of income

MR. M.L. KRUPAL,KODAGU vs. ITO, WARD-1, MADIKERI

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

ITA 380/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jan 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2005-06 Late M.L. Krupal M/S. Prime Commodities Blv Complex Somwarpet 571 236 Represented By Legal Heir Suvina Krupal Ito Vs. C/O Shreehari Kutsa, Advocate Ward-1 No.2B, 2Nd Floor, ‘Solus’, Madikeri 1St Cross J.C. Road Bangalore 560 027

For Appellant: Smt. Harsha J., A.RFor Respondent: Sri V. Parithivel, D.R

purchases were not disputed by the AO. Hence, we are also deleting the addition of Rs. 11,88,000/- under head bogus creditors and accordingly, this ground of appeal is also allowed. 14. Ground No. 9 as reproduced at Para No. 3 with regard to additions amounting to Rs. 3,50,06,130/- treated as unexplained source of income