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.

260 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 10clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,027Delhi1,240Jaipur347Kolkata327Ahmedabad311Chennai260Bangalore191Chandigarh169Surat162Hyderabad135Indore122Rajkot114Raipur111Pune104Amritsar72Visakhapatnam61Cochin59Guwahati58Lucknow56Nagpur56Agra35Jodhpur33Allahabad33Patna28Cuttack21Ranchi18Dehradun15Jabalpur11Varanasi7Panaji3

Key Topics

Addition to Income84Section 13268Section 153A60Section 143(3)54Section 14843Section 153C40Section 25036Disallowance36Section 132(4)26

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 1817/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &
Section 132Section 139Section 153CSection 250

purchases unjustified on the AO’s part to baldly allege that, all purchases lacking GRN details were bogus. GRN details were bogus. 10. Having considered the above submissions, we Having considered the above submissions, we cannot conclusively cannot conclusively agree with the AO that agree with the AO that, the material seized from the premises of the the material seized

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

Showing 1–20 of 260 · Page 1 of 13

...
Section 26324
Bogus Purchases23
Reassessment12
ITA 1613/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 1613 To 1615/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &
Section 132Section 153CSection 250

10% of the turnover. The Ld. CIT(A) thus partly sustained the addition made by the AO on account of bogus purchase sustained the addition made by the AO on account of bogus purchase sustained the addition made by the AO on account of bogus purchases. Consequent to the rejection of books of accounts and estimation of Consequent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

ITA 1614/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 1613 To 1615/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &
Section 132Section 153CSection 250

10% of the turnover. The Ld. CIT(A) thus partly sustained the addition made by the AO on account of bogus purchase sustained the addition made by the AO on account of bogus purchase sustained the addition made by the AO on account of bogus purchases. Consequent to the rejection of books of accounts and estimation of Consequent

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

ITA 1548/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 1613 To 1615/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &
Section 132Section 153CSection 250

10% of the turnover. The Ld. CIT(A) thus partly sustained the addition made by the AO on account of bogus purchase sustained the addition made by the AO on account of bogus purchase sustained the addition made by the AO on account of bogus purchases. Consequent to the rejection of books of accounts and estimation of Consequent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

ITA 1615/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 1613 To 1615/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &
Section 132Section 153CSection 250

10% of the turnover. The Ld. CIT(A) thus partly sustained the addition made by the AO on account of bogus purchase sustained the addition made by the AO on account of bogus purchase sustained the addition made by the AO on account of bogus purchases. Consequent to the rejection of books of accounts and estimation of Consequent

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

ITA 1552/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2022-23
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

bogus purchases across ten years was not justified. The Tribunal also noted that statements alone cannot be conclusive proof and that the suppliers were genuine. However, the Tribunal agreed with the rejection of books of accounts and estimated profit at 10% of turnover, partially allowing the appeal.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

ITA 1819/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2022-23
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

bogus purchases over ten years was not sustainable without further evidence. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the books of account should be rejected and profits estimated. The Tribunal estimated the profit at 10% of the turnover.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

ITA 1550/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

purchases were bogus was not sustainable. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to reject the books of accounts and estimate profits at 10% of turnover, also dismissing the addition on CSR contributions.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

ITA 1818/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2021-22
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

bogus purchases for all years was not justified due to weak footing and lack of conclusive evidence. While acknowledging accounting deficiencies, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that a 10% estimation of profit on turnover was appropriate for the rejected books of accounts. The disallowance of CSR contributions was also deleted.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

ITA 1551/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2021-22
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

10% of the turnover, citing judicial precedents. The addition related to CSR contributions was also deleted as the assessee had not claimed it as a deduction.", "result": "Partly Allowed", "sections": [ "139", "153C", "132", "143(2)", "143(3)", "145(3)", "271AAD", "144", "145", "40A(3)", "68", "69C", "29", "30", "43D" ], "issues": "Whether the addition made by the AO for bogus purchases

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LIMITED, ANNA NAGAR

Accordingly, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos. 1881, 1882, and 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys. 2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are allowed

ITA 1879/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 134(4)Section 250

bogus purchases, amounting to Rs. 53,25,720, representing the income component of such purchases totaling Rs. 4,43,81,000/-. 36. The assessee further stated that the seized records also reflected other inflows and outflows unrelated to the aforementioned items. A portion of this related to on-money received from the sale of land at Palakol, amounting

INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos. 1881, 1882, and 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys. 2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are allowed

ITA 1882/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 134(4)Section 250

bogus purchases, amounting to Rs. 53,25,720, representing the income component of such purchases totaling Rs. 4,43,81,000/-. 36. The assessee further stated that the seized records also reflected other inflows and outflows unrelated to the aforementioned items. A portion of this related to on-money received from the sale of land at Palakol, amounting

INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.1881, 1882,\nand 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys.2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are\nallowed

ITA 1881/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2016-17
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 134(4)Section 250

bogus purchases\ntotaling Rs.4,43,24,430/-, the assessee clarified during the post-\nsearch proceedings that the scheme merely circumvented\nconventional accounting principles but did not affect the genuineness\nof the transactions. The assessee explained that certain goods, such\nas gunny bags, ropes, and other packing materials, had to be procured\nfrom micro and rural vendors operating in the highly

ACIT, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LIMITED, ANNA NAGAR

Accordingly, the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.1881, 1882,\nand 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys.2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are\nallowed

ITA 1876/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2019-20
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

bogus expenditure.\nThe income already disclosed in the return under section 148 of Rs.\n53,25,720/- was considered, and the remaining balance of Rs.\n3,89,98,710/- was brought to tax under section 37(1).\n45. The seized Excel sheet also reflected a cash transaction of Rs.\n39,22,000/- in the name of Shri B. Sivaprasad

ACIT, NUNAGAMBAKKAM vs. INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LIMITED, ANNA NAGAR

ITA 1874/CHNY/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025
For Appellant: \nMr. Y. Sridhar, FCA
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

bogus purchases\ntotaling Rs.4,43,24,430/-, the assessee clarified during the post-\nsearch proceedings that the scheme merely circumvented\n- : 20 -:\nITA Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025\nITA Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025\nIntegrated Service Point Ltd.\nconventional accounting principles but did not affect the genuineness\nof the transactions. The assessee explained that certain goods, such\nas gunny bags, ropes, and other packing

INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-2(4), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.1881, 1882,\nand 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys.2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are\nallowed

ITA 1883/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Dec 2025AY 2022-23
For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 250

bogus purchases\ntotaling Rs.4,43,24,430/-, the assessee clarified during the post-\nsearch proceedings that the scheme merely circumvented\n:- 20 -:\nITA Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025\nITA Nos.1874, 1876 & 1879/Chny/2025\nIntegrated Service Point Ltd.\nconventional accounting principles but did not affect the genuineness\nof the transactions. The assessee explained that certain goods, such\nas gunny bags, ropes, and other packing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX OFFICE, TRICHY vs. RAMASAMY SIVAPRAKASAM, KARUR

ITA 1266/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. M.K. Rangaswamy, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 37Section 37(1)

Section 69C of the Act which deals with nature and source of payment of expenditure, whereas in the instant case, the source of payment made towards purchase was not in question and rather the disallowance was made u/s 37(1) of the Act which deals with the allowability of expenditure for which business purpose test is applicable

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TRICHY, INCOME TAX OFFICE, TRICHY vs. RAMASAMY SIVAPRAKASAM, KARUR

ITA 1267/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. M.K. Rangaswamy, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 37Section 37(1)

Section 69C of the Act which deals with nature and source of payment of expenditure, whereas in the instant case, the source of payment made towards purchase was not in question and rather the disallowance was made u/s 37(1) of the Act which deals with the allowability of expenditure for which business purpose test is applicable

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI vs. RADIANCE REALTY DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as\nwell as the Cross-Objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2978/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nSHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA Nos.2978 - 2984/Chny/2024\n&\nCO Nos.11-17/Chny/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2022-23\n\nThe DCIT,\nCentral Circle-2(1),\nChennai.\nM/s Radiance Realty-\nDevelopers India Ltd.,\nRadiance Towers, 1st Floor,\n33 Feet Road, Anna Salai,\nGuindy, Chennai – 600 032.\n[PAN: AACCN5152H]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross\nObjector)\n\nITA Nos.2971 - 2972/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारणवर्ष/A

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

10% set out in Section\n43CA of the Act and therefore the AO was legally entitled to add the\ndifferential sum as deemed sales consideration of the assessee. The Ld.\nAR for the assessee has however asserted that, the lower authorities\nought to have referred the matters to the DVO as mandated in Section\n43CA(2) of the Act. According

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), CHENNAI vs. RADIANCE REALTY DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as\nwell as the Cross-Objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2981/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND\nSHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER\nITA Nos.2978 - 2984/Chny/2024\n&\nCO Nos.11-17/Chny/2025\nनिर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17 to 2022-23\n\nThe DCIT,\nCentral Circle-2(1),\nChennai.\nM/s Radiance Realty-\nDevelopers India Ltd.,\nRadiance Towers, 1st Floor,\n33 Feet Road, Anna Salai,\nGuindy, Chennai – 600 032.\n[PAN: AACCN5152H]\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\n(प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/Cross\nObjector)\n\nITA Nos.2971 - 2972/Chny/2024\nनिर्धारणवर्ष/

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

10% set out in Section\n43CA of the Act and therefore the AO was legally entitled to add the\ndifferential sum as deemed sales consideration of the assessee. The Ld.\nAR for the assessee has however asserted that, the lower authorities\nought to have referred the matters to the DVO as mandated in Section\n43CA(2) of the Act. According