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.

379 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 2clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai6,205 Delhi2,872 Kolkata984 Jaipur667 Ahmedabad658 Chennai569 Surat462 Pune419 Bangalore379 Chandigarh300 Hyderabad231 Indore207 Raipur174 Rajkot133 Karnataka128 Amritsar120 Nagpur116 Lucknow81 Visakhapatnam75 Guwahati75 Cuttack70 Cochin67 Calcutta67 Agra52 Jodhpur49 Allahabad35 Patna34 Ranchi29 Telangana20 Dehradun18 Jabalpur14 Varanasi8 SC7 Panaji5 Orissa3 Gauhati2 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 Punjab & Haryana1 Bombay1 Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Addition to Income79 Section 14870 Section 153A61 Section 143(3)58 Section 153C51 Disallowance37 Section 13233 Section 6829 Section 133A28

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

Showing 1–20 of 379 · Page 1 of 19

...

Natural Justice16

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 entries in books. (2) So, when ‘NO PURCHASE” was made, obviously there was “NO SALE”. So, there is no question of any profit element. 4.6 Regarding ground of appeals No.8 in ITA Nos. 431- 434/Β/2024(A.Y.2013-14 to A.Y.2016-17) & ground of appeals No.9 in ITA Nos.435/B/2024 (A.Y.2017-18) she submitted that Sanction u/s 153 D not adjudicated

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

2 2012-13 5„50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 3 2013-14 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 4 2014-15 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 5 2015-16 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 6 2016-17 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase Total 33,00,00,000 I have already stated in my answer to the earlier

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

2 2012-13 5„50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 3 2013-14 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 4 2014-15 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 5 2015-16 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 6 2016-17 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase Total 33,00,00,000 I have already stated in my answer to the earlier

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

2 2012-13 5„50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 3 2013-14 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 4 2014-15 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 5 2015-16 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 6 2016-17 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase Total 33,00,00,000 I have already stated in my answer to the earlier

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

2 2012-13 5„50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 3 2013-14 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 4 2014-15 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 5 2015-16 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 6 2016-17 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase Total 33,00,00,000 I have already stated in my answer to the earlier

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

2 2012-13 5„50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 3 2013-14 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 4 2014-15 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 5 2015-16 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase 6 2016-17 5,50,00,000 Bogus Purchase Total 33,00,00,000 I have already stated in my answer to the earlier

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

ITA 824/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Zain Ahmed Khan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 250

section 148 of the Act. 6. The ld. AO erred in not issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act. 7. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the ld. AO erred in disallowing the business expenditure aggregating to Rs.28,60,000/- and the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

ITA 823/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Zain Ahmed Khan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 250

section 148 of the Act. 6. The ld. AO erred in not issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act. 7. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the ld. AO erred in disallowing the business expenditure aggregating to Rs.28,60,000/- and the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same

INTACT DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), BANGALORE

ITA 825/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 250

section 148 of the Act. 6. The ld. AO erred in not issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the I.T. Act. 7. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Id. AO erred in disallowing the business expenditure aggregating to Rs.28,60,000/- and the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same

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\nentries in books.\n(2)\nSo, when ‘NO PURCHASE” was made, obviously there\nwas “NO SALE”. So, there is no question of any profit\nelement.\n4.6 Regarding ground of appeals No.8 in ITA Nos. 431-\n434/Β/2024(A.Y.2013-14 to A.Y.2016-17) & ground of appeals\nNo.9 in ITA Nos.435/B/2024 (A.Y.2017-18) she submitted that\nSanction u/s 153 D not adjudicated

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

section 40A (3) and these cannot be allowed against the income. The appellant is unable to show that purchases as claimed to have actually been made in the light of glaring evidences brought on record by the assessing officer. 11. The main argument of the appellant is that — “The AO ought to have appreciated the fact that the responsibility

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

section 40A (3) and these cannot be allowed against the income. The appellant is unable to show that purchases as claimed to have actually been made in the light of glaring evidences brought on record by the assessing officer. 11. The main argument of the appellant is that — “The AO ought to have appreciated the fact that the responsibility

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

section 153C of the Act on those vendors. e. The Appellant cannot be held responsible for the 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

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

section 153C of the Act on those vendors. e. The Appellant cannot be held responsible for the 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

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

section 153C of the Act on those vendors. e. The Appellant cannot be held responsible for the 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

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

section 153C of the Act on those vendors. e. The Appellant cannot be held responsible for the 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

M/S LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 2826/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

section 40(A)(2) disallowed the entire expenses. We note that on one hand the Ld.CIT(A) is observing the casual manner in which the disallowance is made, and on the other hand he is confirming disallowance to the extent of 50% on adhoc basis. We are not in agreement with such ways of the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.TPO

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 2473/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

section 40(A)(2) disallowed the entire expenses. We note that on one hand the Ld.CIT(A) is observing the casual manner in which the disallowance is made, and on the other hand he is confirming disallowance to the extent of 50% on adhoc basis. We are not in agreement with such ways of the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.TPO

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 2260/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

section 40(A)(2) disallowed the entire expenses. We note that on one hand the Ld.CIT(A) is observing the casual manner in which the disallowance is made, and on the other hand he is confirming disallowance to the extent of 50% on adhoc basis. We are not in agreement with such ways of the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.TPO