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.

7 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 2(15)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,601Delhi983Jaipur317Kolkata254Chennai237Ahmedabad234Bangalore177Chandigarh148Surat130Hyderabad126Indore101Raipur94Rajkot91Pune79Amritsar72Cochin58Guwahati57Visakhapatnam54Lucknow46Nagpur44Allahabad30Agra29Jodhpur27Patna24Cuttack17Dehradun7Varanasi7Jabalpur6Ranchi5Panaji3

Key Topics

Addition to Income6Section 143(3)5Disallowance4Section 2633Section 1473Section 145(3)3Section 133(6)3Natural Justice3Section 44B

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

MB PETROLEUM SERVICES LLC,MUMBAI vs. DDIT, DEHRADUN

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

2
Section 1452
Section 802
Cash Deposit2
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

15. That in any case the additions sustained are highly excessive and cannot be justified by the material on record.” 3. The assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal vide letter dated 19.08.2018 which is as under:- MB Petroleum Services LLC "That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has erred

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

DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN vs. KAMAL JEWELLERS, DEHRADUN

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 161/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Yogesh Kumar Us & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Sahini, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Poonam Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(3)Section 68

2. The assessee is registered with VAT Department and the sales have been accepted by the VAT Department as per VAT Returns. 3. The turnover as per audited financial statement is Rs. 92,88,33,383/- and the said turnover has been accepted by the order of DC, VAT dated 25.01.2020. 4. The books of accounts have been accepted

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

2 | P a g e the said enhancement was grounded on the assessee's failure to substantiate the direct and indirect expenses as well as the purchases claimed by it in the Trading and P&L Account prepared for the year. 7. That, the appellant craves leave to add or amend any other more ground of appeal as stated above

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)

Purchase Deeds and the mode of payment of cost of improvements. 8. The only reason for rejecting the claim of the Assessee by the Ld. CIT(A) that in the enquiry made u/s 133(6) of the Act, where one party Mr. Saeed Ahmad did not provide his confirmation against his bill raised for the cost of improvement