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.

89 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 133Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai783Delhi422Jaipur216Kolkata155Bangalore89Surat79Ahmedabad59Chennai57Pune48Chandigarh47Indore46Hyderabad38Guwahati37Raipur28Visakhapatnam27Rajkot25Cuttack20Agra17Lucknow14Patna9Nagpur9Jodhpur7Amritsar6Allahabad5Jabalpur3Dehradun2Panaji2Cochin2Telangana2Varanasi1Karnataka1

Key Topics

Addition to Income80Section 153A72Section 14847Section 132(4)47Disallowance47Section 133A43Section 13243Section 153C40Section 6836Section 69B

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

purchase price being inflated cannot be ruled out and there is no material to dislodge such finding. The issue is not whether the purchase price reflected in the books of account matches the purchase price stated to have been paid to other persons. The issue is whether the purchase price paid by the assessee is reflected as receipts

Showing 1–20 of 89 · Page 1 of 5

25
Survey u/s 133A24
Natural Justice18

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. Since the facts are similar in all these assessment years, we consider the facts in assessment year 2013-14. 2.2 The appellant is engaged in the production of fish meal and extraction of fish oil. A search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "The Act") was carried

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

purchases recorded in the computer of the assessee firm containing date wise purchases made by the assessee from Malpe were found. When confronted, the partner present during the course of the survey proceedings, clarified that the purchases under the column "MalpePur Actual" represented the actual purchases for which payments had been made by NEFT/RTGS and ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023

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

purchases recorded in the computer of the assessee firm containing date wise purchases made by the assessee from Malpe were found. When confronted, the partner present during the course of the survey proceedings, clarified that the purchases under the column "MalpePur Actual" represented the actual purchases for which payments had been made by NEFT/RTGS and ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023

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

purchases recorded in the computer of the assessee firm containing date wise purchases made by the assessee from Malpe were found. When confronted, the partner present during the course of the survey proceedings, clarified that the purchases under the column "MalpePur Actual" represented the actual purchases for which payments had been made by NEFT/RTGS and ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023

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

purchases recorded in the computer of the assessee firm containing date wise purchases made by the assessee from Malpe were found. When confronted, the partner present during the course of the survey proceedings, clarified that the purchases under the column "MalpePur Actual" represented the actual purchases for which payments had been made by NEFT/RTGS and ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023

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

purchases recorded in the computer of the assessee firm containing date wise purchases made by the assessee from Malpe were found. When confronted, the partner present during the course of the survey proceedings, clarified that the purchases under the column "MalpePur Actual" represented the actual purchases for which payments had been made by NEFT/RTGS and ITA Nos.62 to 66/Bang/2023

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

133A of the\nAct was conducted at the factory at Sasihitlu and godown at\nBaikampady, Mangalore\n2.5 During the course of search on 08.02.2018, it was noticed that\npayments towards purchase of raw fish/fish meal were made to Sri\nRaghav Poojary, Sri Abdul Rasheed and some others for the\nalleged purchases. However, it was found that all these persons\nwere

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

section 153C of the Act. On the other hand, ld. D.R. submitted that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act is not void-ab-initio and it is evident that the assessee has made admission of bogus purchase for the year and agreed to offer the same as additional income. Ld. D.R. further submitted that the statement recorded

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

M/S. HARIS MARINE PRODUCTS,MANGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 383/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)
Section 143Section 153DSection 263

section 263 of the Act requires to be quashed on the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, substitute and delete any or all the grounds of appeal urged above. Page 4 of 23 10. For the above and other grounds to be urged during the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays

CHOKKANAHALLI GUNDAPPA CHANDRAPPA ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result both these appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 311/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep C., A.RFor Respondent: Sri N. Balusamy, D.R
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 250

bogus sub-contract expenditures. Thus, the revenue’s reliance solely on the statements of the parties without any corroborative evidence is not at all acceptable. 10.5 Further, we also observe that during the course of assessment proceedings, the statement made by the assessee as well as two other parties during the course of survey were also retracted. The retraction / revised

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)

133A of the Act does not carry the same evidentiary value as one recorded under oath during a search under section 132(4) of the Act or recorded under ITA No.978, 1190 & CO No.24/Bang/2024 Page 27 of 68 section 131(1) of the Act. Such statements, especially when retracted later or unsupported by independent evidence, cannot be made the basis

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)

133A of the Act does not carry the same evidentiary value as one recorded under oath during a search under section 132(4) of the Act or recorded under . ITA No.978, 1190 & CO No.24/Bang/2024 Page 27 of 68 section 131(1) of the Act. Such statements, especially when retracted later or unsupported by independent evidence, cannot be made the basis

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 433/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

133A of the\nAct was conducted at the factory at Sasihitlu and godown at\nBaikampady, Mangalore\n2.5 During the course of search on 08.02.2018, it was noticed that\npayments towards purchase of raw fish/fish meal were made to Sri\nRaghav Poojary, Sri Abdul Rasheed and some others for the\nalleged purchases. However, it was found that all these persons\nwere

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 432/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

133A of the\nAct was conducted at the factory at Sasihitlu and godown at\nBaikampady, Mangalore\n2.5 During the course of search on 08.02.2018, it was noticed that\npayments towards purchase of raw fish/fish meal were made to Sri\nRaghav Poojary, Sri Abdul Rasheed and some others for the\nalleged purchases. However, it was found that all these persons\nwere

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)

purchase of fixed assets to the extent was bogus and therefore the opening written down value (wdv) of the assets on which depreciation was claimed by the Assessee in AY 2004-05 on the same item of machinery had to be reduced and as a consequence ITA Nos. 1232/Bang/2005, 990/Bang/2008, 627, 628, 950, 951/Bang/2009, C.O. Nos.6 to 10-Bang

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)

purchase of fixed assets to the extent was bogus and therefore the opening written down value (wdv) of the assets on which depreciation was claimed by the Assessee in AY 2004-05 on the same item of machinery had to be reduced and as a consequence ITA Nos. 1232/Bang/2005, 990/Bang/2008, 627, 628, 950, 951/Bang/2009, C.O. Nos.6 to 10-Bang

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)

purchase of fixed assets to the extent was bogus and therefore the opening written down value (wdv) of the assets on which depreciation was claimed by the Assessee in AY 2004-05 on the same item of machinery had to be reduced and as a consequence ITA Nos. 1232/Bang/2005, 990/Bang/2008, 627, 628, 950, 951/Bang/2009, C.O. Nos.6 to 10-Bang

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)

purchase of fixed assets to the extent was bogus and therefore the opening written down value (wdv) of the assets on which depreciation was claimed by the Assessee in AY 2004-05 on the same item of machinery had to be reduced and as a consequence ITA Nos. 1232/Bang/2005, 990/Bang/2008, 627, 628, 950, 951/Bang/2009, C.O. Nos.6 to 10-Bang