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.

281 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 2clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,426Delhi1,421Kolkata401Ahmedabad369Jaipur364Chennai281Bangalore196Surat189Chandigarh182Hyderabad138Indore127Raipur125Rajkot122Pune110Amritsar81Nagpur67Guwahati66Visakhapatnam65Lucknow62Cochin61Jodhpur42Agra41Patna34Allahabad33Cuttack25Ranchi22Dehradun18Jabalpur12Varanasi7Panaji3

Key Topics

Addition to Income84Section 153A68Section 13268Section 143(3)58Section 14844Section 153C38Section 25034Disallowance32Section 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

2 Disallowance of data center expenses Disallowance of data center expenses 55,64,877 61,36,677 61,36,677 1,29,61,697 3 Addition on a/c of unaccounted sale of Addition on a/c of unaccounted sale of NA 42,94,341 42,94,341 42,94,341 scrap 4 Addition on a/c of bogus CSR contribution of bogus

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

Showing 1–20 of 281 · Page 1 of 15

...
Section 26324
Bogus Purchases21
Demonetization12
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

2) of the Act had expired. Accordingly, the income-tax assessments for AYs assessments for AYs 2018-19 to 2019-20 weren’t pendin weren’t pending before AO on the date of search, therefore, those years didn’t abate date of search, therefore, those years didn’t abate date of search, therefore, those years didn’t abate consequent

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

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

2) of the Act had expired. Accordingly, the income-tax assessments for AYs assessments for AYs 2018-19 to 2019-20 weren’t pendin weren’t pending before AO on the date of search, therefore, those years didn’t abate date of search, therefore, those years didn’t abate date of search, therefore, those years didn’t abate 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

2) of the Act had expired. Accordingly, the income-tax assessments for AYs assessments for AYs 2018-19 to 2019-20 weren’t pendin weren’t pending before AO on the date of search, therefore, those years didn’t abate date of search, therefore, those years didn’t abate date of search, therefore, those years didn’t abate 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

2) of the Act had expired. Accordingly, the income-tax assessments for AYs assessments for AYs 2018-19 to 2019-20 weren’t pendin weren’t pending before AO on the date of search, therefore, those years didn’t abate date of search, therefore, those years didn’t abate date of search, therefore, those years didn’t abate 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": [ "139", "143(2

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

sections": [ "139", "153C", "132", "143(2)", "143(3)", "145(3)", "271AAD", "145", "144", "30", "43D", "29", "68", "69", "69C" ], "issues": "Whether the additions made by the AO towards alleged bogus purchases

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

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

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": [ "139", "153C", "132", "143(2

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": [ "139", "153C", "132", "143(2

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 as against appellant’s voluntary disallowance of 12% in ROI u/s 148. 3.1 On facts and under the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai erred in adjudicating the disallowances at 20% of the alleged bogus purchases, which is over and above the disallowances of 12% on alleged bogus purchases voluntarily returned

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 as against appellant’s voluntary disallowance of 12% in ROI u/s 148. 3.1 On facts and under the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai erred in adjudicating the disallowances at 20% of the alleged bogus purchases, which is over and above the disallowances of 12% on alleged bogus purchases voluntarily returned

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

section 69A,\nthe addition of unexplained expenditure of Rs.42,30,000/- under\nsection 69C, and the minor addition of Rs.81,230/-, all of which were\nmade in the assessment order.\n77. Simultaneously, the assessee also preferred an appeal, raising a\nsolitary ground that the enhancement of estimated income on the\nalleged bogus purchases from

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\npurchases as against appellant's voluntary disallowance of 12% in\nROI u/s 148.\n3.1 On facts and under the circumstances of the case, the learned\nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai erred in\nadjudicating the disallowances at 20% of the alleged bogus\npurchases, which is over and above the disallowances of 12% on\nalleged bogus purchases voluntarily returned

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\npurchases as against appellant's voluntary disallowance of 12% in\nROI u/s 148.\n3.1 On facts and under the circumstances of the case, the learned\nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai erred in\nadjudicating the disallowances at 20% of the alleged bogus\npurchases, which is over and above the disallowances of 12% on\nalleged bogus purchases voluntarily returned

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\npurchases as against appellant's voluntary disallowance of 12% in\nROI u/s 148.\n3.1 On facts and under the circumstances of the case, the learned\nCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai erred in\nadjudicating the disallowances at 20% of the alleged bogus\npurchases, which is over and above the disallowances of 12% on\nalleged bogus purchases voluntarily returned

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

2% of thevalue of purchase making it at 17% of\nthe value of purchase. Being aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A),\nboth the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before us.\n\n8.4\nWe have heard both the parties. From the facts placed before us, it\nis noted that, the search team had found electronic data

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, TIRUPUR, TIRUPUR vs. LOOCUST INCORP, TIRUPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee vide CO Nos

ITA 1694/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1692, 1693, 1694 & 1695 / Chny/2025 Assessment Years-2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Loocust Incorp, No.28A, Mgr Nagar, 14Th Street, Circle-1(1) Tirupur. Pn Road, Tirupur, Tamil Nadu-641 602. [Pan: Aabfl6721C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Co Nos.-77, 78, 79 & 80 / Chny/2025, Assessment Years-2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Loocust Incorp, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.28A, Mgr Nagar, 14Th Street, Circle-1(1) Pn Road, Tirupur, Tirupur. Tamil Nadu-641 602. [Pan: Aabfl6721C] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.T.Banusekar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)

bogus purchases.  Pass such other orders as the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal may deem fit….” 9.0 In support of the Revenue appeals, the Ld.DR vociferously argued in favour of the order of Ld.AO and assailed the order of Ld.CIT(A). It was contended that the Ld.CIT(A) has, while according relief, has passed a non-speaking order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, TIRUPUR vs. LOOCUST INCORP, TIRUPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee vide CO Nos

ITA 1695/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1692, 1693, 1694 & 1695 / Chny/2025 Assessment Years-2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Loocust Incorp, No.28A, Mgr Nagar, 14Th Street, Circle-1(1) Tirupur. Pn Road, Tirupur, Tamil Nadu-641 602. [Pan: Aabfl6721C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Co Nos.-77, 78, 79 & 80 / Chny/2025, Assessment Years-2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Loocust Incorp, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.28A, Mgr Nagar, 14Th Street, Circle-1(1) Pn Road, Tirupur, Tirupur. Tamil Nadu-641 602. [Pan: Aabfl6721C] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.T.Banusekar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)

bogus purchases.  Pass such other orders as the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal may deem fit….” 9.0 In support of the Revenue appeals, the Ld.DR vociferously argued in favour of the order of Ld.AO and assailed the order of Ld.CIT(A). It was contended that the Ld.CIT(A) has, while according relief, has passed a non-speaking order

DEPUTY COMMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, TIRUPUR, TIRUPUR vs. LOOCUST INCORP, TIRUPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee vide CO Nos

ITA 1693/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1692, 1693, 1694 & 1695 / Chny/2025 Assessment Years-2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Loocust Incorp, No.28A, Mgr Nagar, 14Th Street, Circle-1(1) Tirupur. Pn Road, Tirupur, Tamil Nadu-641 602. [Pan: Aabfl6721C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Co Nos.-77, 78, 79 & 80 / Chny/2025, Assessment Years-2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 Loocust Incorp, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, No.28A, Mgr Nagar, 14Th Street, Circle-1(1) Pn Road, Tirupur, Tirupur. Tamil Nadu-641 602. [Pan: Aabfl6721C] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr.T.Banusekar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)

bogus purchases.  Pass such other orders as the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal may deem fit….” 9.0 In support of the Revenue appeals, the Ld.DR vociferously argued in favour of the order of Ld.AO and assailed the order of Ld.CIT(A). It was contended that the Ld.CIT(A) has, while according relief, has passed a non-speaking order