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.

3 results for “bogus purchases”+ Deductionclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,552Delhi1,155Kolkata447Jaipur401Chennai373Ahmedabad284Bangalore194Pune165Hyderabad159Chandigarh147Surat132Indore113Raipur93Nagpur64Visakhapatnam62Cochin62Cuttack56Rajkot54Lucknow48Amritsar43Allahabad34Guwahati30Agra26Jodhpur26Karnataka13Ranchi11Dehradun9Patna8Varanasi8Panaji5Telangana5SC4Jabalpur3Calcutta3ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 153C5Section 2633Section 153A(1)3Section 143(3)3Section 153C(1)2Section 142(1)2Addition to Income2

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-SATNA, SATNA vs. M/S. RAM KUMAR SURESH KUMAR, SATNA

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

ITA 136/JAB/2018[2013-14]Status: PendingITAT Jabalpur22 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Pavan Kumar Gaaleasst. Commissioner Of Vs Shri Ram Kumar Income Tax, Circle-Satna, Suresh Kumar, Satna Birla Road, Satna (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaffr3899D Revenue By Shri Shravan Kumar Gotru, Cit Dr Assessee By Shri Rahul Bardia, Fca Date Of Hearing 13/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023 O R D E R Per Om Prakash Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against Order Dated 12.03.2018 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Jabalpur [In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] For The Assessment Year 2013-14, Raising Following Grounds:

Section 133(6)Section 68

deducted thereon. The purchases are supported by bills for which payments have also been made through RTGS to the account provided by the broker/creditor. There is nothing on record to show that the entries of purchases in the books of account are mere accommodation entries and that the payment made for the purchases were received back by the appellant

SHRI SUBHASH KUMAR AAHI,SATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-SATNA, SATNA

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 24/JAB/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur12 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Nikhil Choudhary

For Respondent: Shri N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR 1
Section 143(3)Section 250

purchase was a very old building and therefore, it had to be assumed that the same had been completely renovated but on consideration thereof a deduction of Rs.5,00,000/- was admissible on this account. Therefore, he restricted the investment in the shop to a sum of Rs.24,60,000/- and added back the difference in the disclosed and undisclosed

SHRI NITIN SHARMA,JABALPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 25/JAB/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Sanjay Arora

Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A(1)Section 153CSection 153C(1)Section 153DSection 263Section 7(1)

bogus. Yes, one could argue that the amount be regarded as a gift, reflecting the same by write-off of (or debiting) the loan amount to the capital account of the assessee-lender. The question posed hereinbefore for a ‘loan’ could, in that case, equally validly be asked for a ‘gift’. In fact, the gift is itself liable