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.

52 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 10(26)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,126Delhi1,447Jaipur457Kolkata371Chennai338Ahmedabad280Bangalore249Pune179Chandigarh176Surat163Hyderabad160Indore142Karnataka121Raipur90Rajkot83Amritsar81Nagpur64Cochin59Guwahati52Visakhapatnam47Cuttack45Lucknow44Calcutta37Allahabad34Agra33Jodhpur25Telangana12Patna6Varanasi6Panaji5Jabalpur5Ranchi5SC5Dehradun4Orissa2Gauhati1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 6870Addition to Income36Section 153C33Section 14831Section 25026Section 10(26)24Section 153A17Disallowance12Section 143(3)9Section 40A(3)

NYANYA GOLLO,ITANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TEZPUR

In the result, ITA No. 110/Gau/2020 is allowed and ITA No

ITA 110/GTY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 10(26)Section 250Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(c)

purchase has been furnished, a few sample copies of sale bills have been furnished but the authenticity and genuineness of the said sale bills remained in serious question in view of above discussions. The Appellant has tried to take shelter of provisions of Section 10(26) of the Act by making bogus

NYANYA GOLLO,ITANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TEZPUR

In the result, ITA No. 110/Gau/2020 is allowed and ITA No

Showing 1–20 of 52 · Page 1 of 3

9
Reassessment9
Depreciation9
ITA 167/GTY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 10(26)Section 250Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(c)

purchase has been furnished, a few sample copies of sale bills have been furnished but the authenticity and genuineness of the said sale bills remained in serious question in view of above discussions. The Appellant has tried to take shelter of provisions of Section 10(26) of the Act by making bogus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NORTH LAKHIMPUR vs. BIRI KAKUM, ESS SECTOR

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 170/GTY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati16 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: The Ld. Ao. The Ld. Ao Was Not Satisfied With The Response Given By The Assessee & Made The Impugned Addition With The Following Finding:

Section 10(26)Section 145(3)Section 250

Section 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 16.04.2025. 2 In this case, the Ld. AO found that the assessee had made substantial purchase from suppliers, who are either non-filers or have filed non-business ITRs

INDER CHAND SAND,SILCHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SILCHAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

ITA 49/GTY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati23 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

bogus long-term capital gain entries were taken in large numbers by the beneficiaries, issued notices under section 148 of the Act, which were duly served upon the assessees and reassessment proceeding was carried out. During the course of assessment proceedings, ld. Assessing Officer found that the assessee has shown exempt income under section 10

SAROJ DEVI SAND,SILCHAR vs. INCOEM TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, SILCHAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

ITA 51/GTY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati23 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

bogus long-term capital gain entries were taken in large numbers by the beneficiaries, issued notices under section 148 of the Act, which were duly served upon the assessees and reassessment proceeding was carried out. During the course of assessment proceedings, ld. Assessing Officer found that the assessee has shown exempt income under section 10

D M JEWELLERS,GUWAHATI vs. ADDITIONAL / JOINT / DEPUTY / ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME-TAX OFFICER, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 107/GTY/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati15 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das, Hon’Ble & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Manish Jain, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray JCIT
Section 10(26)Section 132Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

bogus purchase as per provisions of section 68 of the Act. Page 2 of 4 ITA NO. 107 / GTY / 2025 D.M. Jewellers -Vs- The ITO, Ward-2 (1), Guwahati AY: 2014-15 Being aggrieved, the assessee filed 1st appeal before the ld. 3. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 03.02.2025 dismissed the appeal of the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 4, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. A. T. C. REALTORS PVT. LTD., GUWAHATI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 170/GTY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati10 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 169/Gau/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 170/Gau/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2013-14) Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, M/S Atc Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Circle-4, Aayakar Bhwawan, 5Th C/O. Atc Assam Ltd, Kedar Vs. Floor, Christanbasti, G.S. Road, Road, Machkhowa, Guwahati-781005 Guwahati-781001 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. Aagca5209A

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sengupta, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate
Section 143Section 22

purchased the shares of the company not at par but with a hefty premium of Rs. 190 whereas the book value of the said shares is only Rs. 27.71/-. Smit Savina Mary Lyngwa is a tribal and her income accrued in scheduled area are exempted from Income Tax under section 10(26) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 4, GUWAHATI vs. M/S. A. T. C. REALTORS PVT. LTD., GUWAHATI

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 169/GTY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati10 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 169/Gau/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2012-13) Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 170/Gau/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2013-14) Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, M/S Atc Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Circle-4, Aayakar Bhwawan, 5Th C/O. Atc Assam Ltd, Kedar Vs. Floor, Christanbasti, G.S. Road, Road, Machkhowa, Guwahati-781005 Guwahati-781001 (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) स्थायी ऱेखा सं./Pan No. Aagca5209A

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Sengupta, JCITFor Respondent: Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate
Section 143Section 22

purchased the shares of the company not at par but with a hefty premium of Rs. 190 whereas the book value of the said shares is only Rs. 27.71/-. Smit Savina Mary Lyngwa is a tribal and her income accrued in scheduled area are exempted from Income Tax under section 10(26) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The assessee

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. HANS RAJ BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 55/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

purchaser of shares once the order was placed. (d) That he did not know any person by the name of Devesh Upadhyay or Anil Khemka. He requested for an opportunity of cross examining them if they had provided any evidence or given any statement against him. (e) The Assessee emphasized on the fact that in course of search

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. BACHH RAJ BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 54/GTY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

purchaser of shares once the order was placed. (d) That he did not know any person by the name of Devesh Upadhyay or Anil Khemka. He requested for an opportunity of cross examining them if they had provided any evidence or given any statement against him. (e) The Assessee emphasized on the fact that in course of search

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. SHEETAL BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 64/GTY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

purchaser of shares once the order was placed. (d) That he did not know any person by the name of Devesh Upadhyay or Anil Khemka. He requested for an opportunity of cross examining them if they had provided any evidence or given any statement against him. (e) The Assessee emphasized on the fact that in course of search

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. BACHH RAJ BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 53/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

purchaser of shares once the order was placed. (d) That he did not know any person by the name of Devesh Upadhyay or Anil Khemka. He requested for an opportunity of cross examining them if they had provided any evidence or given any statement against him. (e) The Assessee emphasized on the fact that in course of search

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. MEENAKSHI BAMALWA SONI, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 58/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

purchaser of shares once the order was placed. (d) That he did not know any person by the name of Devesh Upadhyay or Anil Khemka. He requested for an opportunity of cross examining them if they had provided any evidence or given any statement against him. (e) The Assessee emphasized on the fact that in course of search

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. BAJRANG LAL BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 52/GTY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

purchaser of shares once the order was placed. (d) That he did not know any person by the name of Devesh Upadhyay or Anil Khemka. He requested for an opportunity of cross examining them if they had provided any evidence or given any statement against him. (e) The Assessee emphasized on the fact that in course of search

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. USHA BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 57/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

purchaser of shares once the order was placed. (d) That he did not know any person by the name of Devesh Upadhyay or Anil Khemka. He requested for an opportunity of cross examining them if they had provided any evidence or given any statement against him. (e) The Assessee emphasized on the fact that in course of search

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 1, DIBRUGARH vs. HANS RAJ BAMALWA (HUF), DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 56/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

purchaser of shares once the order was placed. (d) That he did not know any person by the name of Devesh Upadhyay or Anil Khemka. He requested for an opportunity of cross examining them if they had provided any evidence or given any statement against him. (e) The Assessee emphasized on the fact that in course of search

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. BAJRANG LAL BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 51/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

purchaser of shares once the order was placed. (d) That he did not know any person by the name of Devesh Upadhyay or Anil Khemka. He requested for an opportunity of cross examining them if they had provided any evidence or given any statement against him. (e) The Assessee emphasized on the fact that in course of search

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. RAVI BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 62/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

purchaser of shares once the order was placed. (d) That he did not know any person by the name of Devesh Upadhyay or Anil Khemka. He requested for an opportunity of cross examining them if they had provided any evidence or given any statement against him. (e) The Assessee emphasized on the fact that in course of search

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. MADAN LAL BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 63/GTY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

purchaser of shares once the order was placed. (d) That he did not know any person by the name of Devesh Upadhyay or Anil Khemka. He requested for an opportunity of cross examining them if they had provided any evidence or given any statement against him. (e) The Assessee emphasized on the fact that in course of search

D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, DIBRUGARH vs. VINOD BAMALWA, DIBRUGARH

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 66/GTY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

purchaser of shares once the order was placed. (d) That he did not know any person by the name of Devesh Upadhyay or Anil Khemka. He requested for an opportunity of cross examining them if they had provided any evidence or given any statement against him. (e) The Assessee emphasized on the fact that in course of search