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.

8 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 69Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,708Delhi578Jaipur203Kolkata192Chandigarh118Bangalore77Surat74Ahmedabad66Chennai61Pune57Rajkot47Amritsar45Indore41Hyderabad38Raipur34Agra23Guwahati23Visakhapatnam19Nagpur17Lucknow15Calcutta8Jodhpur7Cuttack4Dehradun3Varanasi2Telangana1Patna1Jabalpur1Cochin1Orissa1

Key Topics

Section 69C13Section 260A8Section 143(3)8Addition to Income8Section 1477Bogus Purchases7Section 2636Reopening of Assessment6Disallowance5

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1 KOLKATA vs. GANESH STEEL AND ALLOYS LTD

ITAT/130/2025HC Calcutta22 Jul 2025

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date: 22Nd July, 2025 Appearance: Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv. …For Appellant

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 260ASection 69C

Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of bogus purchases by holding that application 2 of Section

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. BINOD KUMAR TEKRIWAL

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are allowed and the

Search & Seizure2
ITAT/32/2022
HC Calcutta
15 Jul 2022

Bench: : The Hon’Ble Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Bivas Pattanayak Date : 15Th July, 2022. Appearance :- Mr. Soumen Bhattacharjee, Adv. ….For Appellant

Section 260ASection 263Section 69C

purchase claimed by the assessee against the 7 parties were bogus. The PCIT referred to Section 69C of the Act and pointed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 9 KOLKATA vs. MRS PREMLATA TEKRIWAL

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are

ITAT/29/2022HC Calcutta22 Nov 2022

Bench: This Court In Itat/27/2022, Itat/32/2022 And

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

purchase claimed by the assessee against the parties were bogus. The PCIT referred to Section 69C of the Act and pointed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. ADVANCE ENGINEERING CORPORATION

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the

ITAT/266/2024HC Calcutta09 Jun 2025

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date : 9Th June, 2025.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260ASection 69C

purchases amounting to Rs.18,41,476/- was treated as bogus expenditure under section 69C of the Act and 2% of the said

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed and the substantial

ITAT/86/2025HC Calcutta04 Jul 2025

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260A

section 69C of the Act on the ground of bogus purchases from Sancheti. The assessee preferred appeals before the 5 CIT(A) but the same

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S PURPLE SUPPLIERS PVT LTD

The appeals are dismissed and the substantial

ITAT/84/2025HC Calcutta04 Jul 2025

Bench: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE T.S SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE CHAITALI CHATTERJEE (DAS)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 260A

section 69C of the Act on the ground of bogus purchases from Sancheti. The assessee preferred appeals before the 5 CIT(A) but the same

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2 KOLKATA vs. M/S BOSCON LEATHER PRODUCTS PVT LTD

Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed

ITAT/69/2025HC Calcutta23 Apr 2025

Bench: : The Hon’Ble The Chief Justice T.S. Sivagnanam & The Hon’Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Dated : 23Rd April, 2025

Section 260A

bogus purchase. The Assessing Officer could not have done so neither he should have rejected the books of accounts and, consequently, rejected the gross profit determined at 9.18% and then proceeded to determine the gross profit based on documents and records. Furthermore, the appellate authority has also noted that the assessee has responded to the show-cause notice by submitting

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 5 KOLKATA vs. M/S B L TAK AND SONS HUF

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the learned Tribunal is set aside and the

ITAT/243/2024HC Calcutta09 Jun 2025

Bench: : The Hon'Ble The Chief Justice T.S Sivagnanam -A N D- Hon'Ble Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) Date : 9Th June, 2025.

Section 143(3)Section 260ASection 69C

bogus long term capital loss. Further, the assessing officer on facts found that the market sources revealed that accommodation entries are normally given at brokerage charge of @ 0.2% to 0.5% of the amount involved. Accordingly, the assessing officer held that the observations of expenditure remained unexplained and added back the same to the total income of the assessee under section