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.

468 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 263clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai516Delhi468Kolkata212Jaipur198Karnataka105Ahmedabad80Bangalore77Chennai74Chandigarh70Pune52Surat49Indore45Rajkot41Calcutta40Lucknow29Hyderabad25Guwahati24Nagpur21Agra19Raipur19Jodhpur15Cuttack14Amritsar9Ranchi6Jabalpur5Patna5Varanasi5Panaji2Allahabad2Dehradun2SC1Telangana1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 263172Section 14781Addition to Income65Section 143(3)62Section 69A47Section 13240Search & Seizure33Section 6831Section 153A23Disallowance

VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

In the result, the appeal, filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2217/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 143Section 153Section 153CSection 234ASection 263Section 69C

263 of the Act. We further observed that the incriminating material found during the search not only discloses the details of bogus purchases and also disclosed details about bogus sales. Ld. PCIT is silent on this aspect. 10. Further we observed that Assessing Officer had not dealt with the issue of section

Showing 1–20 of 468 · Page 1 of 24

...
23
Section 14821
Bogus Purchases21

VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

In the result, the appeal, filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2216/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 143Section 153Section 153CSection 234ASection 263Section 69C

263 of the Act. We further observed that the incriminating material found during the search not only discloses the details of bogus purchases and also disclosed details about bogus sales. Ld. PCIT is silent on this aspect. 10. Further we observed that Assessing Officer had not dealt with the issue of section

VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

In the result, the appeal, filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2218/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 143Section 153Section 153CSection 234ASection 263Section 69C

263 of the Act. We further observed that the incriminating material found during the search not only discloses the details of bogus purchases and also disclosed details about bogus sales. Ld. PCIT is silent on this aspect. 10. Further we observed that Assessing Officer had not dealt with the issue of section

CHARBUJA MARMO (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,DELHI vs. PR.CIT- 2 , NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 4749/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

bogus entities-Tribunal allowed assessee's appeal on merits- Revenue appealed against appellate order on merits- Assessee's cross appeal was on correctness of reopening of assessment- Tribunal upheld assessee's cross- objections and dismissed Revenue's appeal holding that there was no proper application of mind by concerned sanctioning authority u/s Section 151 as a pre- condition for issuing

PR.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL)2 vs. DELHI GURGAON SUPER CONNECTIVITY LTD. & ANR.

The appeal is allowed in favour of the

ITA/424/2022HC Delhi13 May 2025

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

For Appellant: Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, SSC with Mr. SanjeevFor Respondent: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Mr. Somil Agarwal and
Section 141(2)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 156Section 260ASection 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 274Section 276D

bogus, on the ground of there being absence of a corresponding debit or asset entry in the books of EGIS Infra, which led the DCIT to opine that other entries in the list of sundry creditors list might also be fictitious, and therefore, action under Section 263 of the Act was necessitated. It is also pertinent to note that

MANJU SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 45(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8275/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Manju Sharma, Vs Ito, Wz-43B, Meenakshi Garden, Ward-45(5), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aatps2170A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Krishnan Sampath, Advocate Revenue By : Ms Rinku Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.11.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.09.2019 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-15, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Is Proprietor Of M/S Eastern Galaxy Which Is Engaged In The Business Of Export Of Handicrafts & Decorative Items. She Filed Her Return Of Income On 29.11.2014 Declaring Taxable Income Of Rs.47,10,000/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass With The Reason That There Is “Large Increase In Sundry Creditors With Respect To Turnover As Compared To Preceding Year.”

For Appellant: Shri Krishnan Sampath, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Rinku Singh, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 144ASection 68

section 263 of the Act and while the case involved bogus purchases, no principle has been enunciated in that regard

M/S SURAJ PULSES PVT.LTD.,,DELHI vs. PR. CIT-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 3010/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Shantanu Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 263

bogus purchase by the assessee was received vide DRI from CCE which was passed on to Revenue authorities and was held to be tangible material outside record to initiate valid re-assessment proceedings. Here in this case, as reiterated several times there was a definite information and material found qua the assessee which at least needed verification and examination

M/S SURAJ PULSES PVT.LTD.,,DELHI vs. PR. CIT-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 3009/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Shantanu Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 263

bogus purchase by the assessee was received vide DRI from CCE which was passed on to Revenue authorities and was held to be tangible material outside record to initiate valid re-assessment proceedings. Here in this case, as reiterated several times there was a definite information and material found qua the assessee which at least needed verification and examination

M/S SURAJ BUILDMART INDIA PVT. LTD.,,DELHI vs. PR. CIT-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 3011/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Shantanu Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 263

bogus purchase by the assessee was received vide DRI from CCE which was passed on to Revenue authorities and was held to be tangible material outside record to initiate valid re-assessment proceedings. Here in this case, as reiterated several times there was a definite information and material found qua the assessee which at least needed verification and examination

M/S SURAJ PULSES PROCESSORS PVT.LTD.,,DELHI vs. PR. CIT-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the Assessees are allowed

ITA 3012/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: S/Shri Shantanu Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-D.R
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 263

bogus purchase by the assessee was received vide DRI from CCE which was passed on to Revenue authorities and was held to be tangible material outside record to initiate valid re-assessment proceedings. Here in this case, as reiterated several times there was a definite information and material found qua the assessee which at least needed verification and examination

HARISH NARANG,PANIPAT vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ROHTAK, ROHTAK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3637/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma& Shri Amitabh Shukla[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Harish Narang, The Principal Commissioner Of H. No.238, Ward No.8, Income Tax, Rohtak, Panipat, Haryana-132103 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Opp. Mansarover Park, Rohtak, Haryana-124001 Pan:Acvpn4090J Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Amit Kaushik, Adv. Revenue By Ms. Amisha S. Gupt, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31.12.2025

Section 144BSection 147Section 263Section 69C

263 of the Act. It was argued that once non- genuineness of the transaction and the bogus element of the purchases were established and the assessee had failed to explain the source of expenditure qua purchase, only recourse left to the ld. AO was to have invoked provisions of section

NKG INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT, C- 3 , NEW DELHI

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3827/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 263(1)

bogus purchases claimed to have been made from Sharma group of Rs.107 crore during the relevant assessment year 2008-09, was not sustainable in law. 6. Assessee challenged the impugned order both on the aspect of law and on merits stating that assessment made by Ld. AO does not fall within the provisions of Explanation 2(d) of Section 263

NKG INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT, C- 3 , NEW DELHI

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3826/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 263(1)

bogus purchases claimed to have been made from Sharma group of Rs.107 crore during the relevant assessment year 2008-09, was not sustainable in law. 6. Assessee challenged the impugned order both on the aspect of law and on merits stating that assessment made by Ld. AO does not fall within the provisions of Explanation 2(d) of Section 263

NKG INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. PR.CIT, C- 3 , NEW DELHI

In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 3825/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 263Section 263(1)

bogus purchases claimed to have been made from Sharma group of Rs.107 crore during the relevant assessment year 2008-09, was not sustainable in law. 6. Assessee challenged the impugned order both on the aspect of law and on merits stating that assessment made by Ld. AO does not fall within the provisions of Explanation 2(d) of Section 263

CONE CRAFT PAPER PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT-1, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed

ITA 3592/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

bogus purchases were made and after due deliberation and consideration of all the submissions, the assessment order was passed wherein the reply of the assessee was not considered and instead of 10 Cone Craft Paper Pvt. Ltd., Delhi granting relief, disallowance of expenditure spent on purchases was made and as such clause b of explanation 2 to Section 263

SHRI GURVINDER SINGH SURI,NEW DELHI vs. PR CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2644/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2644/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Gurvinder Singh Suri, Vs Pr. Commissioner Of Income C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, Tax (Central)-1, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi New Delhi-110049 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaps8291D Assessee By : Sh. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Sushma Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.05.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT DR
Section 119Section 263Section 263(1)Section 57

bogus transactions where he has purchased and sold the stocks through registered brokers and confirmed by valid contract notes as per law. The order u/s 263 has not been based on the stock price but it was based on the information and extensive investigation and the conclusion drawn thereof by the revenue extensive investigation by the department. (h) The transactions

STAR GEMS & JEWELLERY,DELHI vs. PR.CIT- 16, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 4490/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jun 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri O.P.Kant & Shri K. Narsimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Smt. Premlata Bansal, Sr advocateFor Respondent: Sh. S S Rana,CIT Dr
Section 132Section 143Section 143(1)Section 148Section 263

bogus purchases instead of disallowing the entire expenditure in that respect, makes it prejudicial to the interest of revenue. He, therefore, set aside the assessment order under section 263

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. S S PULSES MANUFACTURING PVT LTD, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2384/DEL/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

section 145(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer acquired the mandate even to add the whole amount of purchases found as bogus to the total income of the assessee. One such case was Sri Ganesh Rice Mills Vs. CIT 294 ITR 316 (All) wherein the Page 6 of 16 DCIT Vs. S.S. Pulses [A.Y 2012-13] entire amount

AJAY KUMAR,GHAZIABAD vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), MEERUT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 733/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the assessee through ITBA under DIN & Notice No. ITBA/REV/F/REV1/2020- 21/1031641759(1)/2287dated 22.03.2021 requiring him to explain as to why the order dated 31.12.2018 passed by the DCIT, Central Circle, Noida under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act should not be considered as erroneous

ADDL.CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-18, NEW DELHI vs. JAGANANTH HEMCHAND JAIN, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7755/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 69C

bogus purchase transactions from Kriya controlled by Jain & Choudhary Group. These parties have in unequivocal terms I.T.A. Nos.7754 & 7755/Del/2018 11 CO Nos.15 & 16/Del/2023 admitted in the course of search that they were not doing any real business and were only providing false accommodation entries. These parties/suppliers have also admitted that no physical goods were handed over by them