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.

284 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 4clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,386Delhi1,415Kolkata397Ahmedabad371Jaipur366Chennai284Bangalore198Surat188Chandigarh175Hyderabad140Indore127Raipur125Rajkot122Pune110Amritsar81Guwahati67Nagpur66Visakhapatnam64Lucknow62Cochin61Jodhpur42Agra41Patna36Allahabad33Cuttack25Ranchi22Dehradun18Jabalpur12Varanasi7Panaji3

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

purchase order number, whereas the bogus invoices had no hereas the bogus invoices had no GRN details in remarks section of SAP. remarks section of SAP. d) Based on the clarifications provided by Shri.S.Varatharaj on the Based on the clarifications provided by Shri.S.Varatharaj on the Based on the clarifications provided by Shri.S.Varatharaj on the evidences found, vide his sworn statement

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

Showing 1–20 of 284 · Page 1 of 15

...
Section 26324
Bogus Purchases21
Demonetization12
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

4) of the Act, it was inferred that, they had facilitated inflation of expenses of the assessee by providing bogus invoices of inflation of expenses of the assessee by providing bogus invoices of inflation of expenses of the assessee by providing bogus invoices of purchase of old bottles. Relying upon the material seized from purchase of old bottles. Relying upon

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

4) of the Act, it was inferred that, they had facilitated inflation of expenses of the assessee by providing bogus invoices of inflation of expenses of the assessee by providing bogus invoices of inflation of expenses of the assessee by providing bogus invoices of purchase of old bottles. Relying upon the material seized from purchase of old bottles. Relying upon

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

4) of the Act, it was inferred that, they had facilitated inflation of expenses of the assessee by providing bogus invoices of inflation of expenses of the assessee by providing bogus invoices of inflation of expenses of the assessee by providing bogus invoices of purchase of old bottles. Relying upon the material seized from purchase of old bottles. Relying upon

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

4) of the Act, it was inferred that, they had facilitated inflation of expenses of the assessee by providing bogus invoices of inflation of expenses of the assessee by providing bogus invoices of inflation of expenses of the assessee by providing bogus invoices of purchase of old bottles. Relying upon the material seized from purchase of old bottles. Relying upon

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

purchase items from the unorganized sector at competitive rates and for part of speed money was not accepted. Based on the sworn statements of Shri Stanley Babu and Shri K. Srikanth Apparao, the gross payment of Rs. 4,43,24,430/- was treated as bogus expenditure. The income already disclosed in the return under section

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

purchase items from the unorganized sector at competitive rates and for part of speed money was not accepted. Based on the sworn statements of Shri Stanley Babu and Shri K. Srikanth Apparao, the gross payment of Rs. 4,43,24,430/- was treated as bogus expenditure. The income already disclosed in the return under section

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

purchase order number, whereas the bogus invoices had no\nGRN details in remarks section of SAP.\nd) Based on the clarifications provided by Shri.S.Varatharaj on the\nevidences found, vide his sworn statement recorded u/s 132(4

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

purchase order number, whereas the bogus invoices had no\nGRN details in remarks section of SAP.\nd) Based on the clarifications provided by Shri.S.Varatharaj on the\nevidences found, vide his sworn statement recorded u/s 132(4

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

purchase order number, whereas the bogus invoices had no\nGRN details in remarks section of SAP.\nd) Based on the clarifications provided by Shri.S.Varatharaj on the\nevidences found, vide his sworn statement recorded u/s 132(4

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

purchase order number, whereas the bogus invoices had no\nGRN details in remarks section of SAP.\nd) Based on the clarifications provided by Shri.S.Varatharaj on the\nevidences found, vide his sworn statement recorded u/s 132(4

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

purchase order number, whereas the bogus invoices had no\nGRN details in remarks section of SAP.\n\nd) Based on the clarifications provided by Shri.S.Varatharaj on the\nevidences found, vide his sworn statement recorded u/s 132(4

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

4) which is under Oath.\n5. The Ld. LD.CIT(A) erred in considering the net taxable income at\na new percentage of gross turnover as it is clearly brought out in the\nassessment order that the assessee had never made purchases\nimpugned, which are considered as bogus purchases & in view of\nthe decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court

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

4) which is under Oath.\n5. The Ld. LD.CIT(A) erred in considering the net taxable income at\na new percentage of gross turnover as it is clearly brought out in the\nassessment order that the assessee had never made purchases\nimpugned, which are considered as bogus purchases & in view of\nthe decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court

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

4) which is under Oath.\n5. The Ld. LD.CIT(A) erred in considering the net taxable income at\na new percentage of gross turnover as it is clearly brought out in the\nassessment order that the assessee had never made purchases\nimpugned, which are considered as bogus purchases & in view of\nthe decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court

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

4) which is under Oath.\n5. The Ld. LD.CIT(A) erred in considering the net taxable income at\na new percentage of gross turnover as it is clearly brought out in the\nassessment order that the assessee had never made purchases\nimpugned, which are considered as bogus purchases & in view of\nthe decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court

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)

bogus purchases ought to be assessed to tax. Coming to the issue of estimation of the profits, on the given facts according to us, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly estimated it at 12.5% of the value of purchases, which is found to be fair & reasonable and therefore, no further addition was warranted in this regard. 15. For the reasons

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)

bogus purchases ought to be assessed to tax. Coming to the issue of estimation of the profits, on the given facts according to us, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly estimated it at 12.5% of the value of purchases, which is found to be fair & reasonable and therefore, no further addition was warranted in this regard. 15. For the reasons

V SATHYAMOORTHY&CO,ERODE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -, COIMBATORE

ITA 1024/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1024/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S. V. Sathyamoorthy & Co. Dcit बनाम/ 41, Patel Road, Central Circle-2 Vs. Near Blood Bank, Erode-638 001. Coimbatore. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfv-0222-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1547/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Dcit M/S. V. Sathyamoorthy & Co., बनाम/ Central Circle-2 41, Patel Road, Near Blood Bank, Vs. Coimbatore. Erode-638 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacfv-0222-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)- Ld.Ar " थ" की ओर से/Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29-07-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17-10-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

4. The CIT (Appeals) - 20, Chennai failed to appreciate that the search assessment order under consideration was passed out of time, invalid, passed without jurisdiction and not sustainable both on facts and in law. 5. The CIT (Appeals) - 20, Chennai erred in confirming the addition of Rs.4,93,51,199/- being purchases claimed in books of account maintained

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

4) of the Act is noted to have stated that M/s\nPK Vaduvammal was genuinely supplying steel to the assessee but at the\nsame time was also issuing bogus invoices. He is noted to have explained\nthat, the genuine invoices were identifiable based on the corresponding\ntransport challans and weighment slips and that the bogus invoices did\nnot have these