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.

59 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 40A(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai377Delhi329Chennai134Kolkata100Ahmedabad61Bangalore59Jaipur51Amritsar46Hyderabad45Indore32Chandigarh30Rajkot28Pune27Surat20Allahabad18Nagpur15Visakhapatnam13Cuttack13Jodhpur11Raipur10Guwahati9Lucknow7Agra5Dehradun3Ranchi3Calcutta3Patna2Karnataka2Cochin1

Key Topics

Addition to Income47Disallowance40Section 153A37Section 13228Section 153C18Section 14717Section 40A(3)15Survey u/s 133A15Section 132(4)14Section 131

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: Name Amount Sayeed Ebrahim 61,97,117 Abdul Rasheed 71,75,937 Total 1,33,73,054 3.5.2 In this connection it may be noted that during the search proceedings we were asked to substantiate the purchases of fish made from various parties. However, on the date of search we could not readily produce the necessary confirmations from

Showing 1–20 of 59 · Page 1 of 3

12
Section 132(1)(a)10
Search & Seizure9

M/S. ACE DEVELOPERS,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 76/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheethal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri A. Ramesh Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 34Section 40A(3)

purchases were made through uncrossed cheque/demand draft the same could not be considered as bogus so as to make disallowance under section 40A(3

M/S. ACE DEVELOPERS,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 75/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheethal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri A. Ramesh Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 34Section 40A(3)

purchases were made through uncrossed cheque/demand draft the same could not be considered as bogus so as to make disallowance under section 40A(3

M/S. ACE DEVELOPERS,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, the all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 74/BANG/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheethal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri A. Ramesh Kumar, D.R
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 34Section 40A(3)

purchases were made through uncrossed cheque/demand draft the same could not be considered as bogus so as to make disallowance under section 40A(3

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

bogus purchases as income of the assessee without allowing any expenditure by relying on the enquiry conducted by AO in the first round of proceedings though the vendor sales have been accepted as such. 3. Facts of the case are that earlier assessee came in appeal before this Tribunal in ITA Nos.1658 to 1661/Bang/2018 for the assessment year

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

bogus purchases as income of the assessee without allowing any expenditure by relying on the enquiry conducted by AO in the first round of proceedings though the vendor sales have been accepted as such. 3. Facts of the case are that earlier assessee came in appeal before this Tribunal in ITA Nos.1658 to 1661/Bang/2018 for the assessment year

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

bogus purchases as income of the assessee without allowing any expenditure by relying on the enquiry conducted by AO in the first round of proceedings though the vendor sales have been accepted as such. 3. Facts of the case are that earlier assessee came in appeal before this Tribunal in ITA Nos.1658 to 1661/Bang/2018 for the assessment year

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

bogus purchases as income of the assessee without allowing any expenditure by relying on the enquiry conducted by AO in the first round of proceedings though the vendor sales have been accepted as such. 3. Facts of the case are that earlier assessee came in appeal before this Tribunal in ITA Nos.1658 to 1661/Bang/2018 for the assessment year

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

bogus purchases:\nName\nAmount\nSayeed Ebrahim\n61,97,117\nAbdul Rasheed\n71,75,937\nTotal\n1,33,73,054\n3.5.2 In this connection it may be noted that during the search\nproceedings we were asked to substantiate the purchases of fish\nmade from various parties. However, on the date of search we could\nnot readily produce the necessary confirmations from

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:\nName\nAmount\nSayeed Ebrahim\n61,97,117\nAbdul Rasheed\n71,75,937\nTotal\n1,33,73,054\n3.5.2 In this connection it may be noted that during the search\nproceedings we were asked to substantiate the purchases of fish\nmade from various parties. However, on the date of search we could\nnot readily produce the necessary confirmations from

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

bogus), so they would either be through some unaccounted sales or unaccounted production or by payments in cash [out of drawings from these fictitious bank accounts in the names of these 3 parties] in which case, the appellant would be covered by the provisions of section 40A (3) and these cannot be allowed against the income. The appellant is unable

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

bogus), so they would either be through some unaccounted sales or unaccounted production or by payments in cash [out of drawings from these fictitious bank accounts in the names of these 3 parties] in which case, the appellant would be covered by the provisions of section 40A (3) and these cannot be allowed against the income. The appellant is unable

M/S.LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 2333/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

Section 143(2)

3. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that, the professional/ consultancy services are aggregated with the main business activity of the Appellant under Transactional Net Margin Method ["TNMM"] and are tested by transfer pricing analysis and hence disallowance under section 40A(2) of the Act is bad in law. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in disregarding

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 143(2)

3. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that, the professional/ consultancy services are aggregated with the main business activity of the Appellant under Transactional Net Margin Method ["TNMM"] and are tested by transfer pricing analysis and hence disallowance under section 40A(2) of the Act is bad in law. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in disregarding

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 143(2)

3. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that, the professional/ consultancy services are aggregated with the main business activity of the Appellant under Transactional Net Margin Method ["TNMM"] and are tested by transfer pricing analysis and hence disallowance under section 40A(2) of the Act is bad in law. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in disregarding

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 143(2)

3. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that, the professional/ consultancy services are aggregated with the main business activity of the Appellant under Transactional Net Margin Method ["TNMM"] and are tested by transfer pricing analysis and hence disallowance under section 40A(2) of the Act is bad in law. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in disregarding

M/S.LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 2334/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

Section 143(2)

3. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that, the professional/ consultancy services are aggregated with the main business activity of the Appellant under Transactional Net Margin Method ["TNMM"] and are tested by transfer pricing analysis and hence disallowance under section 40A(2) of the Act is bad in law. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in disregarding

M/S SPR SPIRITS PVT.LTD. ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (3) , BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1659/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40A(3)

Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, the AO has treated the entire payment made to the aforesaid three concerns towards purchase made during the financial years 2007-08 to 2010-11 aggregating to a sum of Rs.27.49 Crores as bogus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE vs. SHRI. T. NADAKRISHNA, BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 575/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40A(3)

Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, the AO has treated the entire payment made to the aforesaid three concerns towards purchase made during the financial years 2007-08 to 2010-11 aggregating to a sum of Rs.27.49 Crores as bogus

M/S SPR SPIRITS PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 (3), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1658/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40A(3)

Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, the AO has treated the entire payment made to the aforesaid three concerns towards purchase made during the financial years 2007-08 to 2010-11 aggregating to a sum of Rs.27.49 Crores as bogus