BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI 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.

6 results for “reassessment u/s 147”+ Bogus Purchasesclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,777Delhi673Kolkata199Jaipur194Bangalore144Ahmedabad135Surat92Chennai84Chandigarh83Pune55Amritsar51Rajkot50Raipur48Guwahati36Hyderabad36Indore35Lucknow27Nagpur23Agra12Jodhpur12Patna12Visakhapatnam11Dehradun6Calcutta4Ranchi2Orissa2Telangana2SC1Jabalpur1Karnataka1Gauhati1Panaji1Punjab & Haryana1Cuttack1Cochin1

Key Topics

Section 14719Section 2638Section 1487Bogus Purchases5Reassessment5Reopening of Assessment4Section 139(1)3Section 69C3Bogus/Accommodation Entry

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)
3
Addition to Income3
Section 2502
Section 142(1)2
Section 143(2)
Section 147
Section 148
Section 250
Section 69C

147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act wherein the total income was assessed at INR 54,23,320/-. 3. Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 04.12.2024, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following

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 263Section 263(2)

147 r.w.s 143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue on the issue of alleged bogus „purchases‟ made from one M/s Meet Enterprises. 2 2.1. That the PCIT exceeded his jurisdiction in setting aside the reassessment order on the issue of alleged bogus „purchases‟ from M/s Meet Enterprises, despite the fact that the issue

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 from proprietorship firms of Sh. Manoj Kumar, Dayanand Parasar and Sh. Pawan Mishra. Thereafter, the during the course of reassessment proceeding, it is found that assessee has not entered into any transactions with these three persons and accordingly, the income declared by the assessee was accepted in terms of the reassessment order passed u/s 147

AMRIT VARSHA UDYOG LTD,KOTDWAR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, DEHRADUN

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2/DDN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Sh. Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 69C

u/s. 147 of the IT Act on the issue of bogus purchases made to the extent of Rs. 49,13,825/- from M/s Shri) Ganpati Enterprises, Rs. Rs.15,10,506/- from M/s Delhi Steel Trading Co. and Rs.53,00,074/- from M/s New India Traders. During the course of the 2nd reassessment

REGALIA JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT -ACIT CEN CIR DDN, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 23/DDN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun09 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) Regalia Jewels Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit/Acit, Shop No. 05, Dlf Shopping Central Circle, Complex, Near Savitri Dehradun Cinema, Gk-2, Delhi- 110048 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaccr9572R Assessee By : Shri D. C. Agarwal, Adv Revenue By: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri D. C. Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri A. S. Rana, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

bogus purchase bills. Since, the reopening is based on incorrect assumption of fact, the same becomes fatal to entire assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act and hence, we have no hesitation to quash the reassessment

AJAY GARG,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 200/DDN/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun26 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 250

bogus purchases. It is also seen that\nassessee in reply to the said notice had filed a detailed reply on 24th\nMarch, 2020 which was sent through email to the AO, however, such reply\nwas not considered and the order was passed u/s 148A(d) recording the\nsatisfaction that it is a fit case for issue of notice u/s