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.

155 results for “bogus purchases”+ Deductionclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,438Delhi1,138Kolkata441Jaipur389Chennai356Ahmedabad280Bangalore184Pune165Hyderabad155Chandigarh147Surat132Indore108Raipur93Cochin62Nagpur61Visakhapatnam58Cuttack56Rajkot52Lucknow45Amritsar43Allahabad34Guwahati30Agra26Jodhpur23Karnataka13Ranchi10Dehradun9Patna8Varanasi8Panaji5Telangana5SC4Jabalpur3Calcutta3ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Addition to Income95Section 143(3)92Section 6854Section 10A48Section 153B44Section 37(1)41Search & Seizure41Section 13240Section 153A

DCIT., CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD vs. ROHINI MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue for the A

ITA 1080/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.980/Hyd/2024, 1079/Hyd/2024 & 1080/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dcit Vs. M/S Rohini Minerals Circle-3(1) Private Limited Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaccr0773N] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.K.Gupta, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.Ar

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 148A

bogus in nature and thus rejected the arguments of the assessee and made addition of Rs. 2,36,00,792/- to the total income of the assessee. 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee had filed relevant evidences, including bills in support of purchases from

Showing 1–20 of 155 · Page 1 of 8

...
39
Deduction37
Section 14832
Disallowance28

DCIT., CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD vs. ROHINI MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue for the A

ITA 980/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.980/Hyd/2024, 1079/Hyd/2024 & 1080/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dcit Vs. M/S Rohini Minerals Circle-3(1) Private Limited Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaccr0773N] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.K.Gupta, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.Ar

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 148A

bogus in nature and thus rejected the arguments of the assessee and made addition of Rs. 2,36,00,792/- to the total income of the assessee. 5. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee had filed relevant evidences, including bills in support of purchases from

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD vs. SRI KARNI JEWELLERS, HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1986/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri S.S. Godara

Section 143(3)Section 148

bogus purchases have to be disallowed as allowable deduction while computing the income of the assessee. This is a case

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1), HYDERABAD vs. KARNI JEWELLERS, HYDERABAD

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

ITA 1987/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri S.S. Godara

Section 143(3)Section 148

bogus purchases have to be disallowed as allowable deduction while computing the income of the assessee. This is a case

MUSADDILALS JEWELLERS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED.,HYDERABAD. vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-16(2)., HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1499/HYD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 Musaddilals Jewellers (India) Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 16(2), Hyderabad. Pan – Aafcm 4841 H

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Smt. B.K. Vishnu Priya
Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)

deduction of RS.1.33 crores on account of purchases merely on the basis of suspicion because the sellers and the canvassing agents have not been produced before them. We find that the order of the Tribunal is well a reasoned order taking into account all the facts before concluding that the purchases of Rs.1.33 crores was not bogus

BHAGATRAM ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for all the relevant assessment years

ITA 1063/HYD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147

bogus and therefore, the entire purchases should be disallowed as deductible expenses while computing the income of the assessee. Accordingly

BHAGATRAM ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), HYDERABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for all the relevant assessment years

ITA 1364/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147

bogus and therefore, the entire purchases should be disallowed as deductible expenses while computing the income of the assessee. Accordingly

BHAGATRAM ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for all the relevant assessment years

ITA 1062/HYD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147

bogus and therefore, the entire purchases should be disallowed as deductible expenses while computing the income of the assessee. Accordingly

BHAGATRAM ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), HYDERABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for all the relevant assessment years

ITA 1362/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147

bogus and therefore, the entire purchases should be disallowed as deductible expenses while computing the income of the assessee. Accordingly

BHAGATRAM ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), HYDERABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for all the relevant assessment years

ITA 1363/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147

bogus and therefore, the entire purchases should be disallowed as deductible expenses while computing the income of the assessee. Accordingly

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

ITA 555/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 153A

bogus/ accommodation entries of purchase bills/unexplained and unverifiable expenses with various vendors have been pointed in a show-cause notice is erroneous. The disallowance made by the learned AO is not based on any specific finding and is devoid of appreciation of the details submitted by the Appellant. 2.2.2. In this regard, we wish to submit that during the assessment

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

ITA 556/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 153A

bogus/ accommodation entries of purchase bills/unexplained and unverifiable expenses with various vendors have been pointed in a show-cause notice is erroneous. The disallowance made by the learned AO is not based on any specific finding and is devoid of appreciation of the details submitted by the Appellant. 2.2.2. In this regard, we wish to submit that during the assessment

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

ITA 554/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 153A

bogus/ accommodation entries of purchase bills/unexplained and unverifiable expenses with various vendors have been pointed in a show-cause notice is erroneous. The disallowance made by the learned AO is not based on any specific finding and is devoid of appreciation of the details submitted by the Appellant. 2.2.2. In this regard, we wish to submit that during the assessment

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELCOM INFRASTRUTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

ITA 509/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 153A

bogus/ accommodation entries of purchase bills/unexplained and unverifiable expenses with various vendors have been pointed in a show-cause notice is erroneous. The disallowance made by the learned AO is not based on any specific finding and is devoid of appreciation of the details submitted by the Appellant. 2.2.2. In this regard, we wish to submit that during the assessment

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

ITA 553/HYD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 153A

bogus/ accommodation entries of purchase bills/unexplained and unverifiable expenses with various vendors have been pointed in a show-cause notice is erroneous. The disallowance made by the learned AO is not based on any specific finding and is devoid of appreciation of the details submitted by the Appellant. 2.2.2. In this regard, we wish to submit that during the assessment

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELCOM INFRASTRUTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

ITA 510/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 153A

bogus/ accommodation entries of purchase bills/unexplained and unverifiable expenses with various vendors have been pointed in a show-cause notice is erroneous. The disallowance made by the learned AO is not based on any specific finding and is devoid of appreciation of the details submitted by the Appellant. 2.2.2. In this regard, we wish to submit that during the assessment

SURYA PRABHA SUNKAVALLI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1327/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P.Jitendra Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 68

bogus purchases then the profit has to be estimated. In PCIT Vs. M/s.Paramshakti Distributors Pvt. Ltd., in Income Tax Appeal No.413 of 2017 on the file of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court the Revenue has not rejected the instances of purchases by accepting the sales, it was proper to tax the profit embedded in such purchases. In ACIT

KINETA GLOBAL LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 800/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.800/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Kineta Global Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Hyderabad. Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Pan: Aacck7944A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Sri S. Venkateswarlu, Tax Consultant रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 03/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”) Dated 21/02/2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Company

For Appellant: Sri S. VenkateswarluFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250(6)

purchases which the assessee company had claimed to have made from M/s. Sauve Corporation India Pvt. Ltd, were bogus and, thus, the entire amount of bogus expenditure was treated by him as the income of the assessee company. The AO, based on his aforesaid observations after reducing the profit of Rs. 18,17,636/-, that the assessee company had claimed

KUPPAM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,KUPPAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), TIRUPATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 29/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Sancheti, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR

purchases are made by the assessee in good faith and all the bills are given at hand length prices. The said transactions are made in the normal course of the business. As such there are no bogus bills/Purchases so as to be subjected to an addition on the ground.” 4. The assessee also raised the following additional ground before

SRUJITHA ANNAPAREDDY,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 253/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.253/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Smt. Surjitha Annapareddy Vs. Income Tax Officer Secunderabad Ward 12(1) Pan:Bnwpa6703L Hydrabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Y Srikanth Reddy, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 22/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/05/2024

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Y Srikanth Reddy, DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

purchased shares of MG Ltd. and on its amalgamation, was allotted shares of AG Ltd. in exchange for its existing holding and whose cost of acquisition has been claimed as eligible deduction and net sale consideration has been claimed as exempt as long-term capital gains. (Para 18) The AO has started with the conclusion, that the assessee is involved