BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

49 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 234Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi85Mumbai81Bangalore49Jaipur25Allahabad21Agra15Ahmedabad13Hyderabad11Indore10Ranchi10Chennai7Chandigarh6Raipur6Kolkata5Lucknow4Jodhpur4Rajkot4Nagpur3Surat3Dehradun2Guwahati1Amritsar1Pune1

Key Topics

Addition to Income42Section 13238Section 153C32Section 234A32Disallowance29Section 153D24Section 153A21Section 14820Section 14416Natural Justice

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 49 · Page 1 of 3

15
Section 25011
Bogus Purchases11

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

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 434/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2016-17
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

purchases could not be disallowed and\nonly the profit element embedded therein could be disallowed.\n8. The learned CIT[A] further ought to have appreciated that sanction\nu/s.153D was accorded is without application of mind and such a\nmechanically granted approval vitiates the assessment order\nrendering it to be held illegal and void-ab-initio under the facts

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

purchases could not be disallowed and\nonly the profit element embedded therein could be disallowed.\n8. The learned CIT[A] further ought to have appreciated that sanction\nu/s.153D was accorded is without application of mind and such a\nmechanically granted approval vitiates the assessment order\nrendering it to be held illegal and void-ab-initio under the facts

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 234A and 234B of the Act.” 2.1 The crux of above grounds is with regard to treatment of entire alleged bogus 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 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 234A and 234B of the Act.” 2.1 The crux of above grounds is with regard to treatment of entire alleged bogus 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 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 234A and 234B of the Act.” 2.1 The crux of above grounds is with regard to treatment of entire alleged bogus 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

section 234A and 234B of the Act.” 2.1 The crux of above grounds is with regard to treatment of entire alleged bogus purchases

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

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

ITA 412/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

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 and consequently

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(3) , BENGALURU

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

ITA 411/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

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 and consequently

LATE SHRI MAHABIR PRASAD(LEGAL HEIR MS. PARUL KANSARIA),BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3) , BENGALURU

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

ITA 410/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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 and consequently

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 and consequently

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

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

ITA 170/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 153D

section\n69C of the act by erroneously treating the German\nbusiness transactions with certain entities as bogus\npurchases on the facts and circumstances of the case.\nV.\nThe learned Commissioner of income tax (appeals) and the\nlearned assessing officer failed to appreciate that the\nappellant has not made any purchase from the entity i.e.,\nM/s Vital Trexmin Pvt Limited

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

purchases could not be disallowed and\nonly the profit element embedded therein could be disallowed.\n8. The learned CIT[A] further ought to have appreciated that sanction\nu/s.153D was accorded is without application of mind and such a\nmechanically granted approval vitiates the assessment order\nrendering it to be held illegal and void-ab-initio under the facts

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

purchases could not be disallowed and\nonly the profit element embedded therein could be disallowed.\n8. The learned CIT[A] further ought to have appreciated that sanction\nu/s.153D was accorded is without application of mind and such a\nmechanically granted approval vitiates the assessment order\nrendering it to be held illegal and void-ab-initio under the facts

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

234A, 234B, and 234C of the Act which is consequential in nature and does not require any separate adjudication. Hence, Ground Nos. 1, 4 & 5 of the assessee’s appeal are hereby dismissed as infructuous. 5. The issue raised by the assessee through Ground No. 2 pertain to validity of search under section

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

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

ITA 1332/BANG/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

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

234A, 234B, and 234C of the Act which is consequential in nature and does not require any separate adjudication. Hence, Ground Nos. 1, 4 & 5 of the assessee’s appeal are hereby dismissed as infructuous. 5. The issue raised by the assessee through Ground No. 2 pertain to validity of search under section

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

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

ITA 1333/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

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

234A, 234B, and 234C of the Act which is consequential in nature and does not require any separate adjudication. Hence, Ground Nos. 1, 4 & 5 of the assessee’s appeal are hereby dismissed as infructuous. 5. The issue raised by the assessee through Ground No. 2 pertain to validity of search under section

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

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

ITA 1334/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

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

234A, 234B, and 234C of the Act which is consequential in nature and does not require any separate adjudication. Hence, Ground Nos. 1, 4 & 5 of the assessee’s appeal are hereby dismissed as infructuous. 5. The issue raised by the assessee through Ground No. 2 pertain to validity of search under section

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

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

ITA 1331/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

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

234A, 234B, and 234C of the Act which is consequential in nature and does not require any separate adjudication. Hence, Ground Nos. 1, 4 & 5 of the assessee’s appeal are hereby dismissed as infructuous. 5. The issue raised by the assessee through Ground No. 2 pertain to validity of search under section

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

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

ITA 1335/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

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

234A, 234B, and 234C of the Act which is consequential in nature and does not require any separate adjudication. Hence, Ground Nos. 1, 4 & 5 of the assessee’s appeal are hereby dismissed as infructuous. 5. The issue raised by the assessee through Ground No. 2 pertain to validity of search under section