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.

6 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 147clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,611Delhi1,087Kolkata375Jaipur364Ahmedabad304Surat302Pune210Bangalore173Chennai160Chandigarh143Hyderabad101Karnataka101Indore82Amritsar72Rajkot72Raipur71Cochin59Nagpur57Guwahati53Calcutta49Lucknow33Patna30Agra25Jodhpur24Visakhapatnam23Allahabad18Ranchi8Jabalpur6Telangana5Dehradun5Cuttack4Orissa2SC2Punjab & Haryana1Gauhati1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 1478Section 2507Section 153C5Addition to Income5Section 2634Natural Justice4Section 153A(1)3Section 143(3)3Bogus Purchases3Section 153C(1)

JAGDISH PRASAD AGRAWAL,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, SEONI

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

ITA 168/JAB/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250

section 147 pursuant to notice dated 6.07.2022, on the allegation that he had engaged in bogus purchase and sale transaction

JAGDISH PRASAD AGRAWAL,SEONI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD, SEONI

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

ITA 167/JAB/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed
2
Section 142(1)2
ITAT Jabalpur
28 Aug 2025
AY 2017-18

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250

section 147 pursuant to notice dated 6.07.2022, on the allegation that he had engaged in bogus purchase and sale transaction

CHANDRA KUMAR JAIN,DAMOH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DAMOH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 70/JAB/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur21 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2011-12 Chandra Kumar Jain, Vs. Nfac, Delhi, (Jurisdiction Prop. M/S Chandra & Sons, 14, 121 Officer, Ito, Damoh, M.P. Kirana Merchant, Bakoli Kirana Line, Damoh, M.P. Pan:Acjpj7460N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, Fca Revenue By: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 21.05.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 29.12.2023 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ito, Ward, Damoh Dated 12.12.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Order Of Ld. Ao Being Based On Third Party'S Statements Without Allowing Their Cross Verification & Hence Addition Made Are Against Law & Natural Justice As Has Been Held In The Case Of C. Vasantlal & Co. V. Cit [1962] 45 Itr 206 By Supreme Court. Hence Additions Of Rs 4,65,700/-And Rs 10,525,/- May Kindly Be Deleted. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld Cit (A) Erred In Confirming The Additions Made By Ao Of Rs. 4,76,225/-Without Considering The Fact That Bill Issued By M/S Narmada Sugar Pvt Ltd Narsinghpur.As Considered To Be That Of Assessee Was Not In Assessee Name & Hence Addition Was Based On Mere Assumptions & Presumptions.

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 69

section 69 towards 100% bogus purchase instead of restricting to profit element as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in decision of N.Κ. Industries Ltd. 4. On the facts & circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that re-opening of the assessment proceedings u/s 147

RENU ANANDANI,JABALPUR vs. NFAC, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 120/JAB/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

147 r.w.s. 143(3) and an addition of Rs. 22,16,080/- was made, which included an addition of Rs. 21,72,628/- on account of bogus short term capital loss on sale of shares. Subsequently, this assessment order was set aside by the ld. PCIT-1, Jabalpur under section 263 of the Act on the grounds that the assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1), JABALPUR vs. M/S.TDP & ASSOCIATES, JABALPUR

In the result, both the Revenue’s appeal and the assessee’s CO are dismissed

ITA 66/JAB/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur15 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Shiv Kumar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 254(2)Section 44A

147 read with section 143(3) of the 1 | P a g e C.O.No. 01/JAB/2022 TDP & Associates Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) dated 28/12/2017 for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 2. The appeal, initially dismissed by the Tribunal on 23/08/2019 on account of low tax-effect, was later recalled vide order u/s. 254(2) dated 27/04/2022 for being

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)

147, allowing time to the assessee to respond, disposed its’ objections to the issue of the notice u/s. 148(1) per a separate, speaking order. The question whether the procedural infirmity was fatal, had already been, as stated by the Tribunal, decided by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court per case law cited by the revisionary authority himself, admitting