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.

3 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 69Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai247Delhi242Jaipur96Ahmedabad64Chandigarh61Cochin58Chennai56Bangalore42Kolkata41Rajkot34Hyderabad27Agra19Surat16Pune12Lucknow12Nagpur9Jodhpur9Indore9Patna7Visakhapatnam4Raipur4Amritsar3Guwahati3Ranchi3Varanasi2Dehradun1Jabalpur1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Addition to Income3Section 69A2Section 1482Section 143(3)2Section 69C2Deduction2

RISHI AGARWAL,GUWAHATI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 266/GTY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati24 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69C

purchases from the suppliers who are either non-filers or have filed non-business ITR or reflected a substantially lower turnover in ITR as compared to turnover shown in GSTR1 return. There is a possibility that assessee has booked bogus expenses in order to reduce its profit / taxable income. x. Further, it is seen that, the Assessing Officer has done

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI vs. RAMSWARUP BAJAJ, ASSAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 113/GTY/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed
ITAT Guwahati
09 Feb 2026
AY 2018-19
Section 68Section 69A

sections": [ "69A", "68" ], "issues": "Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition for bogus unsecured loans and share purchase

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SHILLONG vs. SATINDER SINGH DHARIWAL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 17/GTY/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Arun Bhowmick, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

69A arising out of dealing in bogus penny stock. 2 Satinder Singh, AY: 2016-17 3. From the order sheet entries, we not that no one has represented the assessee before the Tribunal in the past as well as today except for one day where the assessee himself appeared and sought adjournment. 4. Before us, Ld. Sr. DR contended that