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.

11 results for “bogus purchases”+ Disallowanceclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,868Delhi968Kolkata270Jaipur255Ahmedabad245Chennai221Bangalore169Chandigarh147Surat143Hyderabad96Pune95Indore95Raipur94Amritsar69Cochin59Lucknow54Rajkot53Guwahati50Nagpur50Visakhapatnam44Allahabad31Agra28Jodhpur26Ranchi16Cuttack12Patna11Dehradun11Supreme Court5Jabalpur4Panaji2Varanasi1

Key Topics

Addition to Income9Section 2638Disallowance8Section 1477Section 143(3)6Natural Justice5Bogus Purchases4Section 1483Section 145(3)3Section 133(6)

SMT. SAPNA GUPTA,HARIDWAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOEM TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 16/DDN/2021[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun08 Jun 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Sapna Gupta, Vs The Pr. Cit, 299, Awas Vikas Colony, Dehradun. Vivek Vihar, Haridwar – 249 407, Uttarakhand. Pan: Acspg4083D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate & Ms Deepashri Rao, Ca Revenue By : Shri N.S. Jangpangi, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.06.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.16/Ddn/2021 For Ay 2009-10 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dehradun, [Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Pcit‟, In Short] In Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2020- 21/1031815348(1) Dated 27.03.2021 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 148/147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As „The Act‟) Dated 26Th/28Th December, 2018 By The Ld. Assessing Officer, Ward 1(3)(3), Haridwar (Hereinafter Referred To As „Ld. Ao‟). 2. The Only Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld. Pcit Was Justified In Invoking Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act In Respect Of Disallowance Of Purchases Of Rs 33,35,500/- In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri N.S. Jangpangi, CIT, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 263
3
Reassessment3
Section 142(1)2
Section 263(2)

purchases‟ from M/s Meet Enterprises, despite the fact that the issue in reassessment proceedings was restricted only to alleged bogus „payments‟ made to the said party. 2.2. That the PCIT failed to appreciate that the issue of disallowance

ATUL KUMAR AGRAWAL,MANPUR ROAD, KASHIPUR vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 19/DDN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun16 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Mr. Atul Kumar Agarwal Vs National Prop.M/S. R.K. Industries, E-Assessment Centre, Manpur Road, Kashipur, New Delhi U.S. Nagar, Uttarakhand- 244713 Pan-Aaopa9970H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Deepak Joshi,Adv. & Shri Rudra Pratab, Adv. Revenue By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.12.2024 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Nfac/2017-18/10235798 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 15.03.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 15.08.2018, Declaring Total Income At Inr 5,81,560/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Re-Opened U/S 147 Of The Act. Accordingly, Notice U/S 148 Was Issued On 30.03.2022, In Response To Which The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 03.05.2022, Declaring Same Income As Was Declared In The Return Filed U/S 139(1) Of The Act. Thereafter Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued Followed By Notices U/S 142(1) Alongwith Questionnaires. In Response Filed Replies From Time To Time. After Considering The Submissions Made By The Assessee, Ao Completed The Assessment Vide Order Dated 15.03.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Wherein The Total Income Was Assessed At Inr 54,23,320/-.

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

disallow the entire purchases made from the supplier alleged as bogus when he has accepted the production and sales thereof

SHRI VIBHU GROVER,KOTDWARA vs. PCIT, DEHRADUN

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 110/DDN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun26 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalvibhu Grover, Pcit, M/S Grover Sales Corporation, Dehradun. Garage Road, Kotdwara, Vs. Pauri-246169 Pan:Agdpg5842R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anil Jain, Adv. Department By Shri S.K. Chaterjee, Cit-Dr

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 263

bogus purchases was made with these persons. 12. Now ld. PCIT alleged that the AO has not made sufficient enquiries on the basis of so called information supplied by Investigation Wing which contained details of transactions with Sh. Ganpati Enterprises. It is seen that the same is not borne out from the reason recorded and therefore

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. OM PRAKASH GUPTA, DEHRADUN

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 160/DDN/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Jan 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwalita No. 160/Ddn/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2023-24 Dcit, Vs Om Prakash Gupta, Central Circle, 19/A, Raj Vihar, Dehradun-2488001 Dehradun-248001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abipg9323M Assessee By : Sh. S. K. Matta, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2023-24, Arises Against The Cit(A)-3, Noida’S Din & Order No. Itba/Apl/M/250/2025-26/1076723333(1) Dated 04.06.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Heard Both The Parties At Length. Case File Perused.

For Appellant: Sh. S. K. Matta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Poonam Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

bogus purchase expenses of Rs.19,50,000/-; we note that the learned CIT(A)’s detailed discussion deleting the same against the department reads as under: 2 Om Prakash Gupta “5.1 Ground of Appeal No. 1 In this ground of appeal, the AR has contested the addition of Rs. 19,50,000/- made by the AO on account of disallowance

MB PETROLEUM SERVICES LLC,MUMBAI vs. DDIT, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1828/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun15 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshmb Petroleum Services Llc, Vs. Ddit, Kirtane & Pandit, H-16, Circle-1, Saraswati Colony, Sitaldevi International Taxation, Temple Road, Mahim, Dehradun Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecm2604H

For Appellant: Smt Shashi M. Kapila, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mayank Kumar, JCIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 32Section 44B

Purchase” a sum of Rs. 3,07,19,295/- has been debited by the assessee in the profit and loss account. Out of this, the ld AO observed that the assessee could not produce the invoices for Rs. 67,33,505/- and accordingly, proceeded to disallow the same as not allowable expenses

ADIT, DEHRADUN vs. M/S. DAELIM INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD., DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 803/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun31 Oct 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasada N D Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 44C

disallowed the material cost claiming it to be bogus expenses, justifying that project was towards completion and there was no need of material purchase

DCIT, RISHIKESH vs. M/S UTTRANCHAL IRON & ISPAT LTD.,, KOTDWAR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee (ITA No

ITA 2078/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 80

bogus liabilities, holding that AO has not really conducted any investigation into genuineness of the purchases, without appreciating the facts that the assessee has failed to prove identity of the persons and genuineness of the transactions of liabilities shown in its books as on 31.03.2012 on account of Sr. Creditors. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts

UTTRANCHAL IRON & ISPAT LTD.,KOTDWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1(4)(1), RISHIKESH

In the result, this appeal of the assessee (ITA No

ITA 4201/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 80

bogus liabilities, holding that AO has not really conducted any investigation into genuineness of the purchases, without appreciating the facts that the assessee has failed to prove identity of the persons and genuineness of the transactions of liabilities shown in its books as on 31.03.2012 on account of Sr. Creditors. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts

M/S. KVN AUTO ENGINEERING (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO- 1(2), HALDWANI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6446/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun21 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.6446/िद"ी/2016(िन.व. 2012-13) Kvn Auto Engineering (P). Ltd., Plot No. 62, Ramji Vihar, Near Transport Nagar, Haldwani, Uttarakhand ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan: Aadck-9080-A बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), ..... "ितवादी/Respondent Haldwani, Uttarakhand अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate "ितवादी"ारा/Respondent By : Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr (Through Vc) सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 11/02/2025 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : : 21/02/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Haldwani (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Cit(A)') Dated 26.10.2016, For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised As Many As Eight Grounds. The Gist Of Grounds Raised In Appeal Is Ad Under:

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. DR (Through VC)
Section 68Section 69A

purchase by the assessee. The assessee had claimed depreciation on such non-existing plant and machinery, the same was disallowed by the AO on statement made by the assessee. Once the claim of depreciation has been disallowed by the AO, on the ground that there is no such plant and machinery, no addition was warranted in respect of share capital

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. CHAKRATA FIRST AND ASSOCIATES, JAIPUR

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 92/DDN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Vs. Chakrata First & Circle-1(1)(1), Associates, C/O- Amit Tak 41 Dehradun Sanjay Marg, Hathori Fort, Jaipur, Rajasthan Pan: Aalfc2896B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. S.K. Ahuja, Ar Department By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr

Section 145(3)Section 69A

purchase and sale, the net loss declared by the assessee at 3.67% is not acceptable. Thus, the AO held that to cover all possible leakages, the net profit rate of 10% will be justifiable. Therefore, in the absence of books of accounts, bills, vouchers, the net profit at 10% of gross receipts or turnover

KOMA SINGHAL,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT/ACIT CEN CIR, DEHRADUN

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 59/DDN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun06 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

disallowing the cost of improvement to an extent of Rs. 2,00,000/- only on the ground that, one party Mr. Saeed Ahmad did not provide his confirmation against the enquiry letter issued u/s 133(6) of the Act by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the Assessee had provided all the documentary evidences which have