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.

157 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 10(38)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,036Delhi514Jaipur216Kolkata191Chennai157Ahmedabad143Bangalore125Chandigarh122Hyderabad90Surat86Indore82Rajkot67Amritsar60Cochin57Pune56Raipur50Supreme Court36Lucknow34Visakhapatnam33Nagpur30Allahabad27Jodhpur25Guwahati23Agra21Patna15Ranchi14Cuttack12Varanasi7Jabalpur6Dehradun5Panaji3

Key Topics

Addition to Income83Section 153A79Section 13278Section 143(3)54Section 14843Disallowance42Section 25036Section 13934Section 40A(3)31

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

38,04,87,732/-\n32,66,93,496/-\n20,09,10,922/-\nas per books\n4\n% of net profit\n7.69\n7.54\n4.63\n5.\nBalance that requires\nto be considered\n10-7.69 2.31%\n10-7.54=2.46%\n10-4.63=5.37%\n6.\n% of turnover to be\n2.31%\nof 2.46%\nof 5.37\n%\nof\nconsidered in the\nhands of the\nappellant\n494

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

Showing 1–20 of 157 · Page 1 of 8

...
Section 132(4)28
Bogus Purchases26
Reassessment9

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

38,04,87,732/-\n| 32,66,93,496/-\n| 20,09,10,922/-\nas per books\n4\n| % of net profit\n| 7.69\n| 7.54\n| 4.63\n5.\n| Balance that requires\n| to be considered\n| 10-7.69 = 2.31%\n| 10-7.54=2.46%\n| 10-4.63=5.37%\n6.\n| % of turnover

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

38,04,87,732/-\n32,66,93,496/-\n20,09,10,922/-\nas per books\n4\n% of net profit\n7.69\n7.54\n4.63\n5.\nBalance that requires\nto be considered\n10-7.69\n2.31%\n10-7.54=2.46%\n10-4.63=5.37%\n6.\n% of turnover to be\nconsidered in the\nhands\nof\nappellant\n2.31%\nof\n494,87,70,663\n2.46%\nOF\n433

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

38,04,87,732/-\n32,66,93,496/-\n20,09,10,922/-\nas per books\n4\n% of net profit\n7.69\n7.54\n4.63\n5.\nBalance that requires\nto be considered\n10-7.69 2.31%\n10-7.54=2.46%\n10-4.63=5.37%\n6.\n% of turnover to be\n2.31%\nof 2.46%\nof 5.37\n%\nof\nhands\nof\nconsidered

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

38,04,87,732/-\n32,66,93,496/-\n20,09,10,922/-\nas per books\n4\n% of net profit\n7.69\n7.54\n4.63\n5.\nBalance that requires\nto be considered\n10-7.69 2.31%\n10-7.54=2.46%\n10-4.63=5.37%\n6.\n% of turnover to be\nconsidered in the\nhands\nof\nappellant\n2.31%\nof\n494,87,70,663\n2.46%\nof\n433

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

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

10,396\n41. Based on the submissions and computations made, the\nassessee submitted that the income disclosed in the return filed in\nresponse to the notice under section 148—amounting to Rs.\n2,83,13,380/- for A.Y. 2019-20—and the revised statement of total\nincome, which included an additional amount of Rs.3,05,83,113/-.\n(incorporating Rs.23

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

10,57,47,420\n:- 29 -:\n*Note : amount offered\n@8% on transportation\nbills in revised statement\nof total income\n23,37,231\nNil\nNil\nLess: Amount claimed\ntowards Palakol\nexpenses in revised\nstatement of total\nincome\n(67,500)\nTotal income\n3,05,83,111\n10,57,47,420\nFirst Appellate Proceeding\n54. Aggrieved by the additions aggregating

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

10,396\n41. Based on the submissions and computations made, the\nassessee submitted that the income disclosed in the return filed in\nresponse to the notice under section 148—amounting to Rs.\n2,83,13,380/- for A.Y. 2019-20—and the revised statement of total\nincome, which included an additional amount of Rs.3,05,83,113/-\n(incorporating Rs.23

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 260A of the Act, as a matter of routine." ITA Nos.1266 & 1267/Chny/2025 (AYs 2014-15 & 2016-17) Ramasamy Sivaprakasam :: 11 :: 11. In the present case also, if the impugned purchases are disallowed, it would result in an abnormal gross profit rate of 41.55% and a distorted net profit rate of 25.45% in a regular textile export business

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 260A of the Act, as a matter of routine." ITA Nos.1266 & 1267/Chny/2025 (AYs 2014-15 & 2016-17) Ramasamy Sivaprakasam :: 11 :: 11. In the present case also, if the impugned purchases are disallowed, it would result in an abnormal gross profit rate of 41.55% and a distorted net profit rate of 25.45% in a regular textile export business

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

bogus purchases was upheld, by observing\nas under:-\n\n\"10. Considering the submissions made by learned advocate\nMr.Sanghani as well as the finding of facts recorded by the CIT(A) and\nthe Tribunal, it appears that so far as the Question No.1 is concerned,\nthe CIT(A) has noted the fact that the Assessing Officer while making\naddition

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

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 2984/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2022-23

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.\n(अपीलार्थी/Appellant)\nM/s Radiance Realty-\nDevelopers India Ltd.,\nRadiance Towers, 1st Floor,\n33 Feet Road, Anna Salai,\nGuindy, Chennai – 600 032.\n[PAN: AACCN5152H]\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

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

ITA 2983/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2021-22

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

RADIANCE REALTY DEVELOPERS INDIA LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

ITA 2972/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2022-23

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

RADIANCE REALTY DEVELOPERS INDIA LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), CHENNAI

ITA 2971/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2021-22

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

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 2979/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2017-18

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

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 2980/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2018-19

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

bogus purchases was upheld, by observing\nas under:-\n\n\"10. Considering the submissions made by learned advocate\nMr.Sanghani as well as the finding of facts recorded by the CIT(A) and\nthe Tribunal, it appears that so far as the Question No.1 is concerned,\nthe CIT(A) has noted the fact that the Assessing Officer while making\naddition