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.

95 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 133(6)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,328Delhi1,007Kolkata387Jaipur222Ahmedabad214Pune139Surat129Chandigarh115Karnataka101Bangalore95Indore89Raipur58Cochin57Chennai55Hyderabad51Nagpur45Calcutta40Amritsar39Guwahati37Lucknow34Rajkot28Agra24Cuttack24Dehradun9Visakhapatnam9Jodhpur6Ranchi5Patna3Jabalpur2Allahabad2Panaji2Varanasi1Telangana1Gauhati1SC1

Key Topics

Addition to Income83Section 13269Section 153A57Section 143(3)45Section 14841Disallowance41Section 132(4)34Section 133A30Section 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 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 95 · Page 1 of 5

27
Section 6826
Bogus Purchases17
Reassessment16

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 booking of purchases found for FY 2017-18 during survey and applying the test of human probabilities reveal that the appellant has inflated its purchases. More importantly this was admitted by the appellant in the statement and has accepted and declared in the return of income for A.Y. 2016-17. ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal

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 booking of purchases found for FY 2017-18 during survey and applying the test of human probabilities reveal that the appellant has inflated its purchases. More importantly this was admitted by the appellant in the statement and has accepted and declared in the return of income for A.Y. 2016-17. ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal

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 booking of purchases found for FY 2017-18 during survey and applying the test of human probabilities reveal that the appellant has inflated its purchases. More importantly this was admitted by the appellant in the statement and has accepted and declared in the return of income for A.Y. 2016-17. ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal

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 booking of purchases found for FY 2017-18 during survey and applying the test of human probabilities reveal that the appellant has inflated its purchases. More importantly this was admitted by the appellant in the statement and has accepted and declared in the return of income for A.Y. 2016-17. ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal

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 booking of purchases found for FY 2017-18 during survey and applying the test of human probabilities reveal that the appellant has inflated its purchases. More importantly this was admitted by the appellant in the statement and has accepted and declared in the return of income for A.Y. 2016-17. ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023 M/s. Yashaswi Fish Meal

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

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

133(6) nor initiated any proceedings under section 153C of the Act. Thus, if the Ld. AO considers that cash that has been withdrawn by the seller is genuine, then, the Assessee's purchases should also be considered as genuine. However, without verification of above factual positions the Ld. AO has concluded the assessment by considering the entire amount

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

133(6) nor initiated any proceedings under section 153C of the Act. Thus, if the Ld. AO considers that cash that has been withdrawn by the seller is genuine, then, the Assessee's purchases should also be considered as genuine. However, without verification of above factual positions the Ld. AO has concluded the assessment by considering the entire amount

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

133(6) nor initiated any proceedings under section 153C of the Act. Thus, if the Ld. AO considers that cash that has been withdrawn by the seller is genuine, then, the Assessee's purchases should also be considered as genuine. However, without verification of above factual positions the Ld. AO has concluded the assessment by considering the entire amount

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

133(6) nor initiated any proceedings under section 153C of the Act. Thus, if the Ld. AO considers that cash that has been withdrawn by the seller is genuine, then, the Assessee's purchases should also be considered as genuine. However, without verification of above factual positions the Ld. AO has concluded the assessment by considering the entire amount

TE CONNECTIVITY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 7(1)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 2346/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Darpan Kriplani, CAFor Respondent: Dr. KJ Dhivya, CIT (DR)

133(6) to these parties and obtain the information and the alleged bogus purchases only could have been disallowed that at best the profit earned on the alleged bogus purchases. Only could have been disallowed by the AO and not the entire purchases. The Panel had called for certain details from the JAQ directing him to produce the details

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

ITA 610/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 132Section 133Section 133ASection 153C

6,02,229 Chidanand 16,45,615 16,45,615 16,45,615 TOTAL 2,11,70,719 1,23,85,406 93,00,821 In the statement u/s 132(4) K.Mohammed Harris had admitted Rs.1,23,85,406 as bogus purchases for the year and agreed to offer the same as additional income. However in the return of income

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

ITA 611/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 132Section 133Section 133ASection 153C

section 153C of the Act namely discretionary in assets/documents in the course of search conducted in the case of any person that belong to the assessee and is relevant for computing the income of the assessee for the year under appeal is totally absent. 3. The facts of the issue are that there was a search

AMRUTHA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,SANJAYANAGAR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2) , BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 978/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Kumar L, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)

bogus purchases, specially in the absence of any incriminating material found or brought on record suggesting false purchases. It is also significant to note that in the subsequent assessment year, purchases from the same supplier have been accepted as genuine by the Department, which supports the continuity and authenticity of the business relationship. Therefore, considering all the above, we hold

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,MANGALORE, MANGALORE vs. RAJ DIAMONDS, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed &

ITA 1361/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 250

section Date of Notice 1 148A(b) 10/03/2022 2 148A(d) 23/03/2022 3 148 23/03/2022 4 129 01/07/2022 5 143(2)* No valid Return filed by the assessee 6 142(1) 17/11/2022 7 Show Cause Notice 18/03/2023 The claim of the AO is that the assessee did not file any return of income in response to notice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE, BANGALORE vs. AMRUTHA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1190/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar L, Advocate
Section 132Section 132(4)

bogus purchases, specially in the absence of any incriminating material found or brought on record suggesting false purchases. It is also significant to note that in the subsequent assessment year, purchases from the same supplier have been accepted as genuine by the Department, which supports the continuity and authenticity of the business relationship. Therefore, considering all the above, we hold

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE vs. M/S BIOWORTH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

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

ITA 679/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Akkal Dudhewala, C.A by RevenueFor Respondent: Shri K Sankar Ganesh, JCIT (DR) by
Section 133(6)Section 37

purchase value which was doubted by the AO and sales considerations were not accepted. The assessee produced valuation report done by Chartered Account following the Net realizable value of both the companies. From the paper books it has been observed that the both companies replied the notices issued u/s 133(6) of the I. T. Act. which are placed

HABIB AGRO INDUSTRIES ,MANDYA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 1330/BANG/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 153ASection 234Section 234A

133(6) of the Act to Shri Idrish Khan proprietor M/s Arbiya Traders but no reply was received. Hence, a summon under section 131 of the Act was issued to which Shri Idrish Khan appeared personally but not furnished any required details called for. Hence, the AO disallowed the claim of purchases of firewood from M/s Arbiya Traders amounting