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.

8 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 20clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,478Delhi889Jaipur295Kolkata212Chennai211Bangalore170Ahmedabad169Chandigarh135Surat104Hyderabad104Raipur93Rajkot90Indore87Amritsar70Pune69Cochin57Visakhapatnam49Nagpur44Guwahati41Lucknow38Allahabad30Jodhpur26Patna26Agra24Cuttack14Jabalpur8Ranchi6Varanasi6Dehradun3Panaji3

Key Topics

Section 2507Addition to Income7Section 1476Section 143(3)5Section 153A4Section 1274Bogus Purchases4Section 2633Section 1313

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

section 68 is not sustainable. We therefore delete the same and allow ground No.3 of assessee's appeal. 16 | P a g e ACIT vs Shri Ram Kumar Suresh Kumar (vii) In the case of Megha S. Shah v DCIT [2013] 38 CCH 76 the hon'ble ITAT Ahemdabad 'C' Bench has held as under :- "11. We have heard

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

Unexplained Cash Credit3
Cash Deposit3
Section 133(6)2

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

20,869 of the Act without proper A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2016-17 Jagdish Prasad Agrawal consideration of the facts of the case. The addition is arbitrary, unjustified and deserves to be deleted. 5. Any other ground that may be raised during hearing of appeal.” “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed

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: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Aug 2025AY 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

20,869 of the Act without proper A.Ys. 2017-18 & 2016-17 Jagdish Prasad Agrawal consideration of the facts of the case. The addition is arbitrary, unjustified and deserves to be deleted. 5. Any other ground that may be raised during hearing of appeal.” “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-CHHINDWARA, CHHINDWARA vs. SHRI SHEVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR, BALAGHAT

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 91/JAB/2019[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Jabalpur01 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

bogus purchase expenses. The appellant is engaged in the sand mining business. The appellant have to pay royalty and have to incur other expenses like transportation, purchases. labour expenses etc. The AO had disallowed the total expenses debited at Rs.89,72,239/-. It is to be mentioned here that out of the above expense, Rs.57,06,000/- was paid

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JABALPUR vs. SHRI GAURAV AGRAWAL, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 39/JAB/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur01 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Garima Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 127(2)Section 132Section 153A

section 132(4) recorded on 17.11.2015, that out of the cash of Rs.16,96,390 an amount of Rs.4,00,000 belongs 10 Mr. Jitendra Gangwani. The statement of Shri Jitendra Gangwani was recorded on 17.11.2015. He admitted that this money pertains to him. After verification from Mr. Jitendra Gangwani, the authorized officer returned the amount of Rs.4

SHRI GAURAV AGRAWAL,JABALPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 37/JAB/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur01 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Sapan Usrethe, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Garima Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 127(2)Section 132Section 153A

section 132(4) recorded on 17.11.2015, that out of the cash of Rs.16,96,390 an amount of Rs.4,00,000 belongs 10 Mr. Jitendra Gangwani. The statement of Shri Jitendra Gangwani was recorded on 17.11.2015. He admitted that this money pertains to him. After verification from Mr. Jitendra Gangwani, the authorized officer returned the amount of Rs.4

SMT.TEJAL JUGAL KISHORE,SATNA vs. PRINCPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, JABALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 16/JAB/2019[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Jabalpur01 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. K.P Dewani, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Sharvan Kumar Gotru, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263

section 263 of I.T. Act 1961 for the assessment year under consideration. 4. The order passed by A.O. u/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act 1961 being after proper examination and verification ought to have been held that it is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2 Tejal Jugal Kishore 3. Heard the arguments of both

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

bogus. Furthermore, learned CIT(A) had omitted to consider these facts that there was no evidentiary value of statement recorded u/s. 133A of the Act because Section 133A does not empower any income tax authority to examine any person under oath. Reference was invited to decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in the case of and ‘Paul