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.

205 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 271(1)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai529Delhi205Jaipur82Ahmedabad72Bangalore51Chennai50Surat43Indore42Rajkot36Kolkata32Chandigarh30Hyderabad30Raipur29Pune22Amritsar22Allahabad20Guwahati18Nagpur15Lucknow13Jodhpur9Supreme Court6Patna3Agra2Cuttack2Panaji1Jabalpur1Dehradun1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Addition to Income71Section 153A68Section 143(3)43Section 271(1)(c)41Section 6836Section 14735Disallowance28Section 14826Section 143(2)22Penalty

DCIT, CIRCLE 22(2), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. SAHIL VACHANI, DELHI

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2604/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shriavdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17)

For Appellant: S/Shri Anuj Garg & Narpat Singh, Sr.DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Rohan Khare & Priyam
Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

bogus claim, levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation 1 is justified. 19. I find that while imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the AO did not categorically mention the Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act though he mentioned that the explanation offered by the assessee was not found

GEORGE KUTTY,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-13(1), NEW DELHI

Showing 1–20 of 205 · Page 1 of 11

...
20
Reassessment15
Section 25014

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3788/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] George Kutty, Vs Dcit, C/O-M/S. Oasis Tours India (P.) Circle-13(1), Ltd., C-40, Middle Circle, Dwarka New Delhi. Sadan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aajpk4005H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 276CSection 68

bogus, it would be treated as a case of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and penalty proceeding would be justified 9. CIT Vs R.M.P. Plasto (P.) Ltd H84 Taxman 372 (SC)/[2009] 313 ITR 397 (SC)/[2009] 227 CTR 635] where Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Confirmed penalty upon assessee for concealment of income under section 271(1

PRATIBHA BISHT,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-70(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2318/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Pratibha Bisht, Vs Ito, A-5-4, Plot 5C, Pragatisheel Bairwa, Ward-70(1), Sector-11, Dwarka, Delhi-110075. New Delhi. Pan-Ahspb0980D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Saurav Rohtagi, Ca Respondent By Shri Baldev Singh Negi, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.11.2023 Order

Section 148Section 24Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

purchases, making out of bogus bills, etc. He accordingly brought to tax a sum of Rs. 1,72,775 by his assessment order.................. The ITO, by that order, Initiated action for imposition of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. (ii) Para-5: Sir Sadilal Sagar & General Mills case. (A.Y. 1958-59) The assessee company, which derived

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 13(1), NEW DELHI, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI vs. LOGIC EASTERN (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 437/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2016-17] Deputy Commissioner Of Logic Eastern (India) Private Income Tax, Circle-13(1), Limited, Room No.316A, 3Rd Floor, Vs C-56/39, 5Th Floor, Sector-62, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301 New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aaacl3539Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, Cit(Dr) Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 07.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.07.2025 Order Per Brajesh Kumar Singh, Am

Section 143(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 37Section 40

bogus purchases booked during the relevant financial year and disallowed u/s 37 of the Act by holding that they were not incurred for the purpose of the assessee's business. Further, the AO noted his satisfaction that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c

PRATEEK GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. PR, CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 785/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Prateek Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit 152, Chanderpuri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201001 Pan Atbpg8602J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

bogus claim of exemption on penny stock.” 11. Accordingly the Ld. Pr.CIT directed the Ld. AO to re-decide the penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide show cause notice dated 05.12.2017. He also directed the Ld. AO to re-compute the income tax and interest payable as per provisions of section 115BBE

AMAR NATH TYAGI,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5141/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhryassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Sahil Sharma, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Zahid Parvez, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54Section 54F

purchase as 1980 for the purpose of indexation and after claiming exemption u/s. 54F of the Act for construction of existing residential accommodation, declared the long-term capital gains at Rs. Nil. The Assessing Officer by observing that the bills and vouchers furnished by the Assessee in support of the construction made by Assessee are bogus and fictitious and, therefore

SANDEEP GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. PR, CIT, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 784/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16 Sandeep Gupta, Vs. Pr. Cit 152, Chanderpuri, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201009 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

bogus claim of exemption on penny stock.” 7. Accordingly, the Ld. Pr. CIT directed the Ld. AO to redecide the penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act vide show cause notice dated 29.12.2017. He also directed the Ld. AO to recompute income tax and interest payable as per provisions of section 115BBE

SHRI SUBHASH TYAGI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA 1342/Del/21 is allowed

ITA 1044/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year 2016-17

For Respondent: Sh.Sanjay Pandey, CIT DR &
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 250Section 253(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. A show cause notice dated 14.06.2019 was issued to set the penalty proceedings under s. 271AAB(1) of the Act in motion. As a sequel to the show cause notice and response of the assessee thereon, the AO passed penalty order dated 19.06.2019 under clause (c) of erstwhile Section 271AAB(1

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD vs. SUBHASH TYAGI PROP. M/S KRISHANA CONSTRUCTION, MEERUT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in ITA 1342/Del/21 is allowed

ITA 1342/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Kumarassessment Year 2016-17

For Respondent: Sh.Sanjay Pandey, CIT DR &
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 250Section 253(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. A show cause notice dated 14.06.2019 was issued to set the penalty proceedings under s. 271AAB(1) of the Act in motion. As a sequel to the show cause notice and response of the assessee thereon, the AO passed penalty order dated 19.06.2019 under clause (c) of erstwhile Section 271AAB(1

CHIRANJEEV KUMAR VINAYAK,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-47(5), NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6644/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292BSection 68Section 69C

bogus long term capital gain and commission thereon respectively. The Assessing officer also initiated penalty proceedings. Thereafter the Assessing Officer vide order dated 28.12.2018 imposed penalty of Rs. 9,02,488/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals), who after considering the submissions dismissed the appeal

ASSOCIATED MACHINERY CORP. PVT. LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 4735/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

purchase peace and avoid further litigation .So this should not be cannot be considered as concealment of income. 11. It has also been ruled by Honble Supreme Court in Hindustan Steels ltd Vs State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 that penalty cannot be imposed 3 M/s Associated Machinery Corp. Ltd. until & unless there is conscious breach

VIVAAN INFOTEL PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 26(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5549/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 217(1)(c)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

purchases so made makes it a case, fit to be called as concealment of income, thereby making it eligible for the levy of penalty under Sec 271(1)(c). 5.7 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and other Vs Dharmendra Textiles Processors and others 306 ITR 277 has held that the 'mens rea' need

YUVRAJ AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-27(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 9233/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.9233/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Yubraj Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. Acit C-177, Fateh Nagar, Vs. Circle 27(2) Jail Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaccn5302P अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)Section 68

section 276C.” While imposition penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.J Act, 1961, it is of utmost importance to take into cognizance the objective of penalty provision. The price objective of 4 I.T.A.No.9233/Del/2019 penalty provision is to have deterrent effect, to make assessee law abiding and to enforce fiscal discipline amongst the asses see. An assessee

SANDEEP AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal No

ITA 1778/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Sh. Nippun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. S. Yadav, Sr. D.R
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

bogus purchase of Rs. 14,44,111/- vide assessment order dated 28/03/2013. A penalty order came to be passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on 23/03/2016 by imposing 100% penalty of Rs.54,290/-/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. As against the penalty order, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld.CIT

SANDEEP AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI

In the result, the Appeal No

ITA 1777/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Sh. Nippun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. S. Yadav, Sr. D.R
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

bogus purchase of Rs. 14,44,111/- vide assessment order dated 28/03/2013. A penalty order came to be passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on 23/03/2016 by imposing 100% penalty of Rs.54,290/-/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. As against the penalty order, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld.CIT

GULSHAN INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 10(2), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5345/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri A.T. Panda, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Nayyar, Sr.DR
Section 17(2)Section 271(1)(c)

bogus expenses as explained by the Assessing Officer in the quantum proceedings. 4.2 We find justification in the plea of the assessee for inapplicability of Section 271(1)(c) in the facts of the case. I.T.A. No.5345/Del/2017 3 Having distributed the entire expenses in proportion of 2 months out of 12 months on equitable basis, the explanation of the assessee

PBG INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DELHI, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2890/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarpbg International Private Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-19(1), C.R. Building, Cb-4B, Dda Flats, Vs. Delhi-110002. Munirka, Delhi-110067. Pan-Aabcp8752E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Anil Goyal, Ca Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra Sr. Dr Department By 20.01.2026 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against Order Dated 29.04.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Ld. Cit(A)'] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act'] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 25.03.2022 Of The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Original Return Of Income On 14.10.2016 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,42,670/- Along With Computation Of Income, Auditors' Report & Audited Accounts Of The Assessee. Ld. Ao On Basis Of Incriminating & Tangible Information & After Following Due Process, Re-Opened Pbg International Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68Section 690

purchases of Rs. 1,38,32,272/- and bogus sales of Rs 1,47,20,000/-even without rejecting the books of accounts under section 145(3). Therefore, the entire assessment order is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 6.5 The learned AO has erred in giving only two days time to the assessee to give the reply

ACIT, CIRCLE- 8(2), NEW DELHI vs. ESAOTE ASIA PACIFIC DIAGNOSTIC PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7881/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

purchase of finished goods; ii. Addition of Rs.9,16,965/- on account of interest income. 4. The assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order and the same was dismissed. Further appeal filed by the assessee before ITAT is stated to be pending. The Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c

SAIMANDEEP INDUSTRIES OF INDIA ,GHAZIABAD vs. AO-WARD-51(92), FARIDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1372/DEL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dohre, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2012-13. 2. As per its grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the imposition of penalty of Rs.1,17,271/- on account of estimated additions towards bogus purchases

BRIJWASI JEWELLERS,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-06, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 9355/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 9284/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 9355/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 9356/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1027/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Brijwasi Jewellers, Vs Acit, 1170, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Central Circle-14, Chowk, Delhi-110006 New Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafb2917R Ita No. 880/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 881/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 882/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1950/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Acit, Vs Brijwasi Jewellers, Central Circle-14, 1170, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni New Delhi-110006 Chowk, Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafb2917R Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Aman Garg, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.10.2023 Order Per Bench:

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 142(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

section 133(6) of the Act. the Id.AO did not make any further enquiry and just passed the adverse order against the assessee.  The assessee has made purchases from M/s Megha Gems which is the proprietorship concern of Sh, Mitesh Pamecha and M/s Navkar India which is the proprietorship concern of Sh. Abhishek Lodha who have not given any such