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.

18 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 270A(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai37Ahmedabad20Rajkot19Delhi18Guwahati16Jaipur13Surat9Nagpur7Indore5Pune4Chennai3Hyderabad2Lucknow2Chandigarh2Kolkata1Patna1Jodhpur1Bangalore1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 14719Addition to Income18Section 270A12Section 1112Penalty11Natural Justice11Section 6810Section 153C8Disallowance8Section 250

M/S LS CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are partly

ITA 2208/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2207 & 2208/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2019-20 & 2020-21 बनाम M/S Ls Contractors Dcit, Private Limited Vs. Central Circle-30, H-12, Tropical Building, E-2, Ground Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Aabcl8541R Jhandewalan Extension Karol Bagh, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 153CSection 234ASection 270A

270A of the Act.” 2. Thereafter the assessee has also filed additional grounds of appeal challenging the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act by the AO as arbitrary, unjust and invalid by raising the following additional grounds: 1. “That the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act is arbitrary, unjust and invalid. 2. That in the absence

M/S LS CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, DELHI, DELHI

7
Section 143(3)6
Bogus Purchases6

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are partly

ITA 2207/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2207 & 2208/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2019-20 & 2020-21 बनाम M/S Ls Contractors Dcit, Private Limited Vs. Central Circle-30, H-12, Tropical Building, E-2, Ground Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Aabcl8541R Jhandewalan Extension Karol Bagh, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 153CSection 234ASection 270A

270A of the Act.” 2. Thereafter the assessee has also filed additional grounds of appeal challenging the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act by the AO as arbitrary, unjust and invalid by raising the following additional grounds: 1. “That the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C of the Act is arbitrary, unjust and invalid. 2. That in the absence

M/S CARE INDIA SOLUTION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purpose

ITA 7437/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Pratik Arora, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 25Section 250

270A and section 271AAD of the Act.\n11. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the\nlevy of interest under Section234A and Section 234B of the\nAct.\n12. That the Appellant prays for the liberty to raise such\nfurther grounds of appeal arising from the facts of the case,\nas may enable the Appellant to seek justice

M/S CARE INDIA SOLUTIONS FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purpose

ITA 7439/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2026AY 2023-24
For Appellant: Sh. Pratik Arora, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 25Section 250

270A and section 271AAD of the Act.\n11. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the\nlevy of interest under Section234A and Section 234B of the\nAct.\n12. That the Appellant prays for the liberty to raise such\nfurther grounds of appeal arising from the facts of the case,\nas may enable the Appellant to seek justice

DEEPAK GOLCHA,DELHI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-43(1), DELHI

Appeal is allowed in very terms

ITA 4071/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhasstt. Yr: 2022-23

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 270ASection 270A(9)Section 274

270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for Assessment Year 2022-23. 2 2. Facts, in brief, are that for Assessment Year 2022-23 the assessee filed his return of income at Rs. 1,87,09,910/- on 03.11.2022. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) read with section 144B

MUKUL HASTEER,KARNAL vs. ITO WARD-1, KARNAL

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 96/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 234A

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). Various opportunities of being heard to ensure compliance to the show-cause notices were provided by the Ld. AO. However, only part-compliance was made by the assessee. Therefore, the Ld. AO observing as under completed the assessment: “As per Investigation report available on record, the assesses is beneficiary of bogus

M/S CARE INDIA SOLUTION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purpose

ITA 7438/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2026AY 2022-23
For Appellant: Sh. Pratik Arora, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Jain, CIT-DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 25Section 250

270A and section 271AAD of the Act.\n11. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the\nlevy of interest under Section234A and Section 234B of the\nAct.\n12. That the Appellant prays for the liberty to raise such\nfurther grounds of appeal arising from the facts of the case,\nas may enable the Appellant to seek justice

INCOME TAX OFFICER, C.R. BUILDING, ITO vs. SUNITA GOLD AND DIAMONDS PVT LTD, NEW DELHI

ITA 4039/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: \nSh. Upvan Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: \nSh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

bogus particularly when the books of accounts was not rejected\nPage 17\nITA No.4039/Del/2024\nSunita Gold and Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. (AY: 2017-18)\nand further that VAT return clearly corroborates the impugned sales\nmade out by the assessee the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)in deleting\nsuch addition made in the hands of the assessee is found

OCEAN INTERNATIONAL ,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), , FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 8648/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2014-15
Section 147Section 270A

Purchases were\ngenuine, supported by books of account of the\nappellant, and no sales were disputed. Addition based\nsolely on third-party admission is invalid without\ncorroboration.\n5. Excessive Addition Only Profit Element Taxable:\nWithout prejudice, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming\nthe full addition of Rs. 7,95,400-instead of restricting it\nto the profit element

OCEAN INTERNATIONAL,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3),, FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 8647/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2013-14
Section 147Section 270A

Purchases were\ngenuine, supported by books of account of the\nappellant, and no sales were disputed. Addition based\nsolely on third-party admission is invalid without\ncorroboration.\n5. Excessive Addition Only Profit Element Taxable:\nWithout prejudice, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming\nthe full addition of Rs. 7,95,400-instead of restricting it\nto the profit element

OCEAN INTERNATIONAL,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 8651/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
Section 147Section 270A

Purchases were\ngenuine, supported by books of account of the\nappellant, and no sales were disputed. Addition based\nsolely on third-party admission is invalid without\ncorroboration.\n5. Excessive Addition - Only Profit Element Taxable:\nWithout prejudice, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming\nthe full addition of Rs. 7,95,400-instead of restricting it\nto the profit element

JCIT(OSD), DELHI vs. ICRA LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 2890/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2013-14
Section 147Section 270A

Purchases were\ngenuine, supported by books of account of the\nappellant, and no sales were disputed. Addition based\nsolely on third-party admission is invalid without\ncorroboration.\n5. Excessive Addition Only Profit Element Taxable:\nWithout prejudice, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming\nthe full addition of Rs. 7,95,400-instead of restricting it\nto the profit element

ROOPA RANA INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 19(1), DELHI

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3474/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Apr 2025AY 2018-19
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270Section 37Section 37(1)

purchases could not be held bogus\npurchase.\n(iii) CIT vs Smt. Anju Jindal [2016] 387 ITR 418 (Punjab &\nHaryana)\n(iv) Ramesh Kumar &Co, Ville Parle, vs. The ACIT.\n8.\nIn the present case in hand the assessee has submitted the\nexpenses bills before the Ld. CIT(A) and AO. The expense bills\n8\npayments were made through

OCEAN INTERNATIONAL,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 8650/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2016-17
Section 147Section 270A

Purchases were\ngenuine, supported by books of account of the\nappellant, and no sales were disputed. Addition based\nsolely on third-party admission is invalid without\ncorroboration.\n5. Excessive Addition Only Profit Element Taxable:\nWithout prejudice, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming\nthe full addition of Rs. 7,95,400-instead of restricting it\nto the profit element

OCEAN INTERNATIONAL,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 8649/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16
Section 147Section 270A

Purchases were\ngenuine, supported by books of account of the\nappellant, and no sales were disputed. Addition based\nsolely on third-party admission is invalid without\ncorroboration.\n5. Excessive Addition Only Profit Element Taxable:\nWithout prejudice, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming\nthe full addition of Rs. 7,95,400-instead of restricting it\nto the profit element

VIKAS CHAWLA,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 5625/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2022-23 Vikas Chawla, Vs Income Tax Officer, 582/2, 1St Floor, Gali Ward-47(1), D.S. Building, Ghanteshwar Katra Neel New Delhi-110001 Chandni Chowk, New Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afnpc7260A

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 68

bogus party. The said addition is wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to provisions of Sections 41(1) and Section 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961, neither of which are attracted to the present facts. Grounds Relating to Depreciation, Interest and Expenses 4. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in law and facts in disallowing depreciation of Rs.12

BHARAT AGRO INDUSTRIES,BHIWANI vs. DCIT CIRCLE, BHIWANI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3934/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Delhi23 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Bharat Agro Industries, Vs Dcit, Devsar Mod, Opp. Delhi Police Circle Bhiwani. School, Loharu Road, Bhiwani, Haryana-127021. Pan-Aamfb0628H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Gautam Jain, Adv., Shri Lalit Mohan, Adv. & Shri Parth Singhal, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23.02.2024

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

section 115BBE of the Act. 3. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee is engaged in the business manufacturing and trading of Guar, Guar dall, Guar Churi, Rui, Sarson, Sarson Oil, Khal Binola and Joe etc. The assessee had filed its return of income, declaring total income of INR 98,041/- on 30.10.2017. The case

SINGAL AND SONS CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 4 , HISAR

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 264/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansingal & Sons Construction Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 4, Behind Sbi Main Branch, Hisar. Delhi Road, Hisar – 125 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aaccs0362C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.07.2025 Date Of Order : 10.07.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)) Dated 06.11.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Income Of Rs.5,90,940/- On 29.10.2017 For The Ay 2017-18. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Through Cass. Accordingly, Notices

For Appellant: Shri Pranav Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 41(1)Section 43B

270A of the Act. The submission of the appellant on various grounds of appeal is as under: - 1. Ground no 1 to 4 During the year under consideration, the appellant was in engaged in business of Civil construction of dwelling units or other civil construction. The assessing officer has made an addition of Rs. 34,44,803/- on account