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.

4 results for “bogus purchases”+ Unexplained Investmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,614Delhi986Kolkata371Chennai322Jaipur299Ahmedabad190Bangalore143Chandigarh131Hyderabad110Indore97Pune90Surat88Nagpur76Cochin58Rajkot53Raipur53Calcutta40Lucknow33Guwahati32Agra29Allahabad26Cuttack24Jodhpur23Patna18Amritsar14Visakhapatnam12Ranchi7Karnataka5Jabalpur4Dehradun3Orissa2Telangana2Varanasi2Panaji2SC1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 26313Section 153C5Section 143(3)5Section 153A(1)3Addition to Income3Section 153C(1)2Section 142(1)2Section 1472Cash Deposit

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

investment was unexplained and since there was no proof that the shares that were transferred to demat account were the same shares that were purchased earlier, the additions made in this regard were justified. Furthermore, as the short term capital loss had been held to be bogus

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

2
Revision u/s 2632
Natural Justice2
Unexplained Investment2

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

unexplained investment on renovation of shop on the basis of DVO's report. The addition is based on conjectures and surmises, vague and not sustainable in law hence liable to be deleted. 11. That as on the fact and in position of law, the learned CIT(A) had erred in not appreciating the fact that the valuation report prepared

M/S AMBAJEE JEWELLERS JABALPUR,JABALPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX JABALPUR-1,, JABALPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 21/JAB/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Nikhil Choudhary

For Respondent: Shri Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 68

investments. Therefore, Section 69C of the Act did not deal with the issue of genuineness of purchases. It was further submitted that all the notices had been duly replied and the purchase bills produced by the assessee had not been called into doubt as the assessee had duly given name and addresses of the purchases, including the sisters concerns, where

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