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.

15 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 44Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi15Mumbai2Bangalore1

Key Topics

Section 153A28Section 143(3)28Addition to Income15Natural Justice15Disallowance14

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1196/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

purchased the agricultural produce from the farmers. The Mandi Samitis also staled about the documents maintained by them ITA Nos.1338 to 1344/Del/2020 KRBL Ltd. regarding the first arrival (form no. 44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1197/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

purchased the agricultural produce from the farmers. The Mandi Samitis also staled about the documents maintained by them ITA Nos.1338 to 1344/Del/2020 KRBL Ltd. regarding the first arrival (form no. 44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1198/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

purchased the agricultural produce from the farmers. The Mandi Samitis also staled about the documents maintained by them ITA Nos.1338 to 1344/Del/2020 KRBL Ltd. regarding the first arrival (form no. 44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1199/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

purchased the agricultural produce from the farmers. The Mandi Samitis also staled about the documents maintained by them ITA Nos.1338 to 1344/Del/2020 KRBL Ltd. regarding the first arrival (form no. 44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1200/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

purchased the agricultural produce from the farmers. The Mandi Samitis also staled about the documents maintained by them ITA Nos.1338 to 1344/Del/2020 KRBL Ltd. regarding the first arrival (form no. 44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1201/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

purchased the agricultural produce from the farmers. The Mandi Samitis also staled about the documents maintained by them ITA Nos.1338 to 1344/Del/2020 KRBL Ltd. regarding the first arrival (form no. 44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that

KRBL LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 07, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1202/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

purchased the agricultural produce from the farmers. The Mandi Samitis also staled about the documents maintained by them ITA Nos.1338 to 1344/Del/2020 KRBL Ltd. regarding the first arrival (form no. 44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1338/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

purchased the agricultural produce from the farmers. The Mandi Samitis also staled about the documents maintained by them ITA Nos.1338 to 1344/Del/2020 KRBL Ltd. regarding the first arrival (form no. 44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1339/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

purchased the agricultural produce from the farmers. The Mandi Samitis also staled about the documents maintained by them ITA Nos.1338 to 1344/Del/2020 KRBL Ltd. regarding the first arrival (form no. 44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1340/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

purchased the agricultural produce from the farmers. The Mandi Samitis also staled about the documents maintained by them ITA Nos.1338 to 1344/Del/2020 KRBL Ltd. regarding the first arrival (form no. 44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1341/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

purchased the agricultural produce from the farmers. The Mandi Samitis also staled about the documents maintained by them ITA Nos.1338 to 1344/Del/2020 KRBL Ltd. regarding the first arrival (form no. 44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1342/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

purchased the agricultural produce from the farmers. The Mandi Samitis also staled about the documents maintained by them ITA Nos.1338 to 1344/Del/2020 KRBL Ltd. regarding the first arrival (form no. 44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1343/DEL/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

purchased the agricultural produce from the farmers. The Mandi Samitis also staled about the documents maintained by them ITA Nos.1338 to 1344/Del/2020 KRBL Ltd. regarding the first arrival (form no. 44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 19, NEW DELHI vs. KRBL LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed

ITA 1344/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. A.D. Jaindr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Ita No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153A

purchased the agricultural produce from the farmers. The Mandi Samitis also staled about the documents maintained by them ITA Nos.1338 to 1344/Del/2020 KRBL Ltd. regarding the first arrival (form no. 44A, 44B, 51 and 53). Thus, it has been confirmed by the Samiti that the Form 6R filled in by the appellant is not the only evidence to prove that

ISHWAR CHANDER PAHUJA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE 19(1), NEW DELHI

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

ITA 2560/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahmanishwar Chander Pahuja, Vs. Acit, Circle 19 (1), C/O Sumer Garg & Co., Cas New Delhi. E-501A, Itl Northex Tower, Plot No.A – 9, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, New Delhi – 110 034. (Pan : Aafpp4275M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C. Garg, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2024 Date Of Order : 06.09.2024 Order The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short]/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 21.08.2023 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld. Ao Erred In Law & On Facts In Disallowing The Claim Of The Assessee Of Having Earned Agricultural Income At Rs.23,36,957/- & The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Ld. Ao Treating The Same As Bogus Without Making Any Verification In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 10(1)Section 143(2)Section 2Section 234ASection 44A

bogus exempt agricultural income. 5.1 Assessee's explanations: (i) As submitted above, the expenses incurred for agricultural activities were met out of sales of seedlings & seeds to mobile vendors & farmers. It is submitted that it is a usual practice adopted at almost all the farms. This fact had been accepted in all the assessment years (mentioned at Page 89) except