Search: bogus purchases | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

141 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 100clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,004 Delhi735 Jaipur247 Surat238 Chennai158 Kolkata151 Ahmedabad144 Bangalore141 Pune128 Karnataka106 Chandigarh99 Hyderabad83 Cochin57 Indore57 Raipur43 Nagpur38 Calcutta37 Guwahati34 Rajkot31 Lucknow30 Visakhapatnam26 Amritsar26 Cuttack26 Allahabad20 Jodhpur12 Patna10 Agra8 Telangana7 Dehradun7 Jabalpur4 SC3 Panaji3 Varanasi3 Orissa2 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 Ranchi1 Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 153A107 Addition to Income88 Section 13272 Disallowance44 Section 6835 Section 143(3)34 Section 153C24 Section 132(4)24 Section 12A

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 purchase made under section 2013-14 1,33,73,054/- 143(3) r.w.s. 153A 2014-15 91,92,537/- -do- 2015-16 2,22,01,100

Showing 1–20 of 141 · Page 1 of 8

...

21

Natural Justice14

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. 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

BYSANI ADINARAYAGUPTHA SRINATH,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

ITA 399/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

100 taxmann.com 266 (Karnataka-HC) has held that where the result of an addition is an abnormally high GP rate, the same cannot be sustained. 5.6 The AR also argued that the AO adopted arbitrary percentages of disallowance—sometimes 25% and at other times 20%—without any basis. If 75% of the cash purchases are accepted as genuine, there

BYSANI ADINARAYAGUPTHA SRINATH,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

ITA 401/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

100 taxmann.com 266 (Karnataka-HC) has held that where the result of an addition is an abnormally high GP rate, the same cannot be sustained. 5.6 The AR also argued that the AO adopted arbitrary percentages of disallowance—sometimes 25% and at other times 20%—without any basis. If 75% of the cash purchases are accepted as genuine, there

BYSANI SRINATH MAMATHA,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

ITA 406/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

100 taxmann.com 266 (Karnataka-HC) has held that where the result of an addition is an abnormally high GP rate, the same cannot be sustained. 5.6 The AR also argued that the AO adopted arbitrary percentages of disallowance—sometimes 25% and at other times 20%—without any basis. If 75% of the cash purchases are accepted as genuine, there

BYSANI SRINATH MAMATHA,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

ITA 405/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

100 taxmann.com 266 (Karnataka-HC) has held that where the result of an addition is an abnormally high GP rate, the same cannot be sustained. 5.6 The AR also argued that the AO adopted arbitrary percentages of disallowance—sometimes 25% and at other times 20%—without any basis. If 75% of the cash purchases are accepted as genuine, there

BYSANI ADINARAYAGUPTHA SRINATH,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU

ITA 400/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

100 taxmann.com 266 (Karnataka-HC) has held that where the result of an addition is an abnormally high GP rate, the same cannot be sustained. 5.6 The AR also argued that the AO adopted arbitrary percentages of disallowance—sometimes 25% and at other times 20%—without any basis. If 75% of the cash purchases are accepted as genuine, there

BYSANI SRINATH MAMATHA,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

ITA 409/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

100 taxmann.com 266 (Karnataka-HC) has held that where the result of an addition is an abnormally high GP rate, the same cannot be sustained. 5.6 The AR also argued that the AO adopted arbitrary percentages of disallowance—sometimes 25% and at other times 20%—without any basis. If 75% of the cash purchases are accepted as genuine, there

BYSANI ADINARAYAGUPATHA SRINATH,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

ITA 404/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

100 taxmann.com 266 (Karnataka-HC) has held that where the result of an addition is an abnormally high GP rate, the same cannot be sustained. 5.6 The AR also argued that the AO adopted arbitrary percentages of disallowance—sometimes 25% and at other times 20%—without any basis. If 75% of the cash purchases are accepted as genuine, there

BYSANI SRINATH MAMATHA,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for

ITA 410/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

100 taxmann.com 266 (Karnataka-HC) has held that where the result of an addition is an abnormally high GP rate, the same cannot be sustained. 5.6 The AR also argued that the AO adopted arbitrary percentages of disallowance—sometimes 25% and at other times 20%—without any basis. If 75% of the cash purchases are accepted as genuine, there

BYSANI ADINARAYAGUPTHA SRINATH,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years

ITA 402/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

100 taxmann.com 266 (Karnataka-HC) has held that where the result of an addition is an abnormally high GP rate, the same cannot be sustained. . ITA No.399-410/Bang/2025 Page 17 of 33 5.6 The AR also argued that the AO adopted arbitrary percentages of disallowance—sometimes 25% and at other times 20%—without any basis. If 75% of the cash purchases

BYSANI SRINATH MAMATHA,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

ITA 408/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

100 taxmann.com 266 (Karnataka-HC) has held that where the result of an addition is an abnormally high GP rate, the same cannot be sustained. Page 17 of 33 ITA No.399-410/Bang/2025 5.6 The AR also argued that the AO adopted arbitrary percentages of disallowance—sometimes 25% and at other times 20%—without any basis. If 75% of the cash purchases

BYSANI SRINATH MAMATHA,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years

ITA 407/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

100 taxmann.com 266 (Karnataka-HC) has held that where the result of an addition is an abnormally high GP rate, the same cannot be sustained. . ITA No.399-410/Bang/2025 Page 17 of 33 5.6 The AR also argued that the AO adopted arbitrary percentages of disallowance—sometimes 25% and at other times 20%—without any basis. If 75% of the cash purchases

DCIT, GULBARGA vs. M/S JUPITERBIOSCIENCE LTD.,, BIDAR

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 628/BANG/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

100% allowance under Section 35(2)(ia) of the Act for having purchased the machineries to its R & D Department. The learned counsel for the Revenue has rightly placed reliance upon the unreported judgment referred to supra in support of his legal submissions that the claim of the assessee for having acquired machineries which is a movable property runs about

DCIT, GULBARGA vs. M/S JUPITERBIOSCIENCE LTD.,, BIDAR

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 627/BANG/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

100% allowance under Section 35(2)(ia) of the Act for having purchased the machineries to its R & D Department. The learned counsel for the Revenue has rightly placed reliance upon the unreported judgment referred to supra in support of his legal submissions that the claim of the assessee for having acquired machineries which is a movable property runs about

DCIT, GULBARGA vs. M/S JUPITER BIOSCIENCE LTD.,, BIDAR

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 950/BANG/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

100% allowance under Section 35(2)(ia) of the Act for having purchased the machineries to its R & D Department. The learned counsel for the Revenue has rightly placed reliance upon the unreported judgment referred to supra in support of his legal submissions that the claim of the assessee for having acquired machineries which is a movable property runs about

DCIT, GULBARGA vs. M/S JUPITER BIOSCIENCE LTD.,, BIDAR

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 951/BANG/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

100% allowance under Section 35(2)(ia) of the Act for having purchased the machineries to its R & D Department. The learned counsel for the Revenue has rightly placed reliance upon the unreported judgment referred to supra in support of his legal submissions that the claim of the assessee for having acquired machineries which is a movable property runs about

ACIT, GULBARGA vs. M/S. JUPITER BIOSCIENCE LTD.,, BIDAR

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1232/BANG/2005[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

100% allowance under Section 35(2)(ia) of the Act for having purchased the machineries to its R & D Department. The learned counsel for the Revenue has rightly placed reliance upon the unreported judgment referred to supra in support of his legal submissions that the claim of the assessee for having acquired machineries which is a movable property runs about

DCIT, GULBARGA vs. M/S JUPITER BIOSCIENCE LTD.,, BIDAR

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 990/BANG/2008[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

100% allowance under Section 35(2)(ia) of the Act for having purchased the machineries to its R & D Department. The learned counsel for the Revenue has rightly placed reliance upon the unreported judgment referred to supra in support of his legal submissions that the claim of the assessee for having acquired machineries which is a movable property runs about