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.

257 results for “bogus purchases”+ Natural Justiceclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,266Delhi1,254Kolkata377Jaipur365Ahmedabad330Chennai305Bangalore257Pune219Surat176Chandigarh142Hyderabad138Karnataka120Indore109Raipur101Rajkot82Amritsar82Cochin60Nagpur60Calcutta52Cuttack48Lucknow42Agra34Allahabad32Guwahati29Jodhpur24Patna21Visakhapatnam19Telangana14Jabalpur7Dehradun7Ranchi4SC3Panaji2Orissa2Varanasi2Gauhati2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Addition to Income87Section 153A78Section 14854Section 13254Section 153C49Disallowance40Section 143(3)35Section 234A32Section 133A

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

bogus purchases accounted by the assessee as found by any of the lower authorities.” 3.7 In the instant case though assessee had received the supplies from the persons in respect to whom additional income is offered, it has admitted additional income to co-operate with the department. Only where the parties have confirmed, the additional income is not offered

Showing 1–20 of 257 · Page 1 of 13

...
27
Natural Justice26
Section 132(4)22
Bogus Purchases14

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

ITA 434/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

bogus purchases accounted by the assessee as found by any of the lower authorities.” 3.7 In the instant case though assessee had received the supplies from the persons in respect to whom additional income is offered, it has admitted additional income to co-operate with the department. Only where the parties have confirmed, the additional income is not offered

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

Bogus purchase 4,52,01,134 5,52,01,134 (Up to 6.2.2018) Partners 1,00,00,000 personal expenses debited to books Rs.45,02,01,134 Total 5.2 However, for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014- 15, 2015-16 & 2017-18 did not include additional income offered in these assessment years, which was admitted during the course

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

Bogus purchase 4,52,01,134 5,52,01,134 (Up to 6.2.2018) Partners 1,00,00,000 personal expenses debited to books Rs.45,02,01,134 Total 5.2 However, for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014- 15, 2015-16 & 2017-18 did not include additional income offered in these assessment years, which was admitted during the course

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

Bogus purchase 4,52,01,134 5,52,01,134 (Up to 6.2.2018) Partners 1,00,00,000 personal expenses debited to books Rs.45,02,01,134 Total 5.2 However, for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014- 15, 2015-16 & 2017-18 did not include additional income offered in these assessment years, which was admitted during the course

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

Bogus purchase 4,52,01,134 5,52,01,134 (Up to 6.2.2018) Partners 1,00,00,000 personal expenses debited to books Rs.45,02,01,134 Total 5.2 However, for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014- 15, 2015-16 & 2017-18 did not include additional income offered in these assessment years, which was admitted during the course

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

Bogus purchase 4,52,01,134 5,52,01,134 (Up to 6.2.2018) Partners 1,00,00,000 personal expenses debited to books Rs.45,02,01,134 Total 5.2 However, for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014- 15, 2015-16 & 2017-18 did not include additional income offered in these assessment years, which was admitted during the course

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

ITA 435/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

bogus purchases accounted by the assessee as\nfound by any of the lower authorities.”\n3.7 In the instant case though assessee had received the supplies\nfrom the persons in respect to whom additional income is offered, it\nhas admitted additional income to co-operate with the department.\nOnly where the parties have confirmed, the additional income is not\noffered

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

natural corollary, not the entire amount covered under such purchases, but, the profit element embedded therein would be subject to tax." While confirming the findings of the Tribunal, the Hon'ble High Court has held that the parties from whom the purchases made were bogus but purchase itself was not bogus. 6.7. Taking into consideration of all the facts

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

natural corollary, not the entire amount covered under such purchases, but, the profit element embedded therein would be subject to tax." While confirming the findings of the Tribunal, the Hon'ble High Court has held that the parties from whom the purchases made were bogus but purchase itself was not bogus. 6.7. Taking into consideration of all the facts

M/S B B JEWELLERS AND FINANCE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1623/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 68

natural justice and consequently the orders need to be set aside in the interest of equity and justice. 10) The learned CIT(A) erred in: a) confirming the additions of Rs.11,76,380/- being 449 grams of gold as unexplained investments under the facts of the case. b) confirming the additions of Rs. 66,22,780/- by treating the purchases

M/S B B JEWELLERS AND FINANCE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1619/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 68

natural justice and consequently the orders need to be set aside in the interest of equity and justice. 10) The learned CIT(A) erred in: a) confirming the additions of Rs.11,76,380/- being 449 grams of gold as unexplained investments under the facts of the case. b) confirming the additions of Rs. 66,22,780/- by treating the purchases

M/S B B JEWELLERS AND FINANCE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1621/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 68

natural justice and consequently the orders need to be set aside in the interest of equity and justice. 10) The learned CIT(A) erred in: a) confirming the additions of Rs.11,76,380/- being 449 grams of gold as unexplained investments under the facts of the case. b) confirming the additions of Rs. 66,22,780/- by treating the purchases

M/S B B JEWELLERS AND FINANCE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1620/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 68

natural justice and consequently the orders need to be set aside in the interest of equity and justice. 10) The learned CIT(A) erred in: a) confirming the additions of Rs.11,76,380/- being 449 grams of gold as unexplained investments under the facts of the case. b) confirming the additions of Rs. 66,22,780/- by treating the purchases

M/S B B JEWELLERS AND FINANCE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1622/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 68

natural justice and consequently the orders need to be set aside in the interest of equity and justice. 10) The learned CIT(A) erred in: a) confirming the additions of Rs.11,76,380/- being 449 grams of gold as unexplained investments under the facts of the case. b) confirming the additions of Rs. 66,22,780/- by treating the purchases

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

purchase of grapes and bottles from three vendors (Vinayaka Fruit Mandi, Srinivasa Bottle Traders and Venkateshwara Bottle Traders) is bogus. This opportunity ought to have been given by the AO as a general principle of natural justice

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

purchase of grapes and bottles from three vendors (Vinayaka Fruit Mandi, Srinivasa Bottle Traders and Venkateshwara Bottle Traders) is bogus. This opportunity ought to have been given by the AO as a general principle of natural justice

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

purchase of grapes and bottles from three vendors (Vinayaka Fruit Mandi, Srinivasa Bottle Traders and Venkateshwara Bottle Traders) is bogus. This opportunity ought to have been given by the AO as a general principle of natural justice

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

purchase of grapes and bottles from three vendors (Vinayaka Fruit Mandi, Srinivasa Bottle Traders and Venkateshwara Bottle Traders) is bogus. This opportunity ought to have been given by the AO as a general principle of natural justice

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BAENGALURU vs. LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA), BENGALURU

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

ITA 169/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 153D

purchases by the appellant from the said company as bogus and the appellant was not provided with any details and documents gathered against him and also an opportunity of cross-examination of the said companies ITA Nos.410-412-169-170- CO 6/Bang/2024 Page 27 of 40 were not provided to the appellant which is against the principles of natural justice