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.

4 results for “bogus purchases”+ Unexplained Moneyclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai852Delhi536Jaipur211Kolkata197Chennai162Ahmedabad138Bangalore95Chandigarh84Hyderabad68Indore60Cochin59Rajkot53Pune51Raipur39Nagpur36Surat35Guwahati31Lucknow26Jodhpur22Allahabad22Agra19Amritsar17Visakhapatnam15Patna9Ranchi7Cuttack7Jabalpur4Dehradun4Varanasi2

Key Topics

Addition to Income4Section 143(3)3Section 133(6)3Section 682Cash Deposit2Disallowance2

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

money of the assessee. The AO has treated the cash deposit of Rs. 6,55,12,717/- as unexplained income of the assessee u/s 68. The AR has contended that as the AO has not questioned the genuineness of purchases and other expenses, then how can the sales be questioned. A perusal of the assessment order reveals that

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

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

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