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.

49 results for “bogus purchases”+ Demonetizationclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi160Mumbai49Jaipur49Chennai46Ahmedabad39Agra19Surat18Lucknow18Chandigarh18Jodhpur15Bangalore11Guwahati7Indore7Kolkata7Pune6Rajkot6Amritsar4Raipur4Jabalpur2Hyderabad2Visakhapatnam1Dehradun1Patna1Ranchi1Varanasi1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 6863Addition to Income47Section 143(3)40Cash Deposit28Demonetization24Section 115B23Section 69A22Section 143(2)20Section 145(3)19Unexplained Cash Credit

ALKA KHANDAKA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

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

ITA 1014/JPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sauravh Harsh, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

purchase and consequently sale as bogus and made addition of Rs 44,61,000/-. Deposit in the bank account during the demonetization

Showing 1–20 of 49 · Page 1 of 3

17
Section 142(1)14
Section 69C13

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), JAIPUR vs. KIRAN INFRA ISPAT LIMITED, JAIPUR

ITA 535/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 68

demonetization wherein various\nCourts has held that once the sales has been admitted and accepted by the\ndepartment, corresponding deposit in the bank account of the sale\nconsideration cannot be held as bogus. Few cases are as under:\n(i)\nACIT vs Shri Chandra Surana ITA No.166/JP/2022 (Jaipur ITAT)\n(ii)\nM/s Ramlal Jewellers vs ACIT ITA No. 1600/Mum/2023 (Mumbai

SH. TARACHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

ITA 449/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Ke

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR a
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

purchases in relation to such sale is not taxed u/s 69C, then the sale has to be taxed as such ignoring that when profit from Raja Bricks is already taxed, such profit is the source against the purchase of sariya and gartar sold to various persons. Hence what can be added is the profit on such sale for which reliance

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR vs. SH. TARA CHAND GUPTA, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

ITA 514/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA. Nos.447 to 449/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Keshav Nagar Sch 13, Alwar बनाम ACIT, Vs. Central Circle, Alwar स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AAYPC 5777 E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ITA. No. 514/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar बनाम Shri Tarachand Gupta 9 Kesh

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR a
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

purchases in relation to such sale is not taxed u/s 69C, then the sale has to be taxed as such ignoring that when profit from Raja Bricks is already taxed, such profit is the source against the purchase of sariya and gartar sold to various persons. Hence what can be added is the profit on such sale for which reliance

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 488/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, C.A. &For Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

demonetized currency as bogus sale and directed to reduce the same from total sales shown by the appellant and add the same under income from other sources by applying the provisions of section 68/69A of the Act and tax as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 3 Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur. 4. Brief facts of the case

DCIT, CC-2,, JAIPUR vs. SHRI NATH CORPORATION , JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee and that of the revenue stands

ITA 182/JPR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 132Section 143Section 145(3)

demonetization on 08.11.2016, people had rushed to spend the SBN available with them to purchases gold and other useful items. The ld. AO has also not brought any material on record to establish that the sale vouchers are bogus

M/S. SHRI NATH CORPORATION,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, C.C.-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee and that of the revenue stands

ITA 117/JPR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &
Section 132Section 143Section 145(3)

demonetization on 08.11.2016, people had rushed to spend the SBN available with them to purchases gold and other useful items. The ld. AO has also not brought any material on record to establish that the sale vouchers are bogus

ASHISH BHARGAVA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 875/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinok Kumar Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT
Section 115BSection 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

purchases are not supported by the quantitative details and the AO did not make any enquiry on the material supplied by the assessee. Thus the AO neither brought any material on record to establish that the sale bills are bogus nor provided any evidence that such sales are bogus. It is also an open fact that the demonetization

ITO, JAIPUR vs. GOTAM AGARWAL, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 256/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri A.S.Nehra, Addl. CIT fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

Purchase of goods before demonetization period, (ii) New business model – no comparison from earlier years, (iii) Cash sales and (iv) Reason for retaining cash in hand were explained to the ld. CIT (A) which are evident from the submissions reproduced. The ld. A/R further submitted that before the ld. CIT (A) it was also explained that section

MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR vs. ACIT ,CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 149/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

purchases are not supported by the quantitative details and the AO did not make any enquiry on the material supplied by the assessee. Thus the AO neither brought any material on record to establish that the sale bills are bogus nor provided any evidence that such sales are bogus. It is also an open fact that the demonetization

SH. TARACHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

ITA 447/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

purchases. The case of assessee is not of bogus\npurchases. Similarly Gujarat High Court decision is in respect of fictitious\npurchase invoices where the High Court disallowed 25% of such\npurchases. Hence this decision is also distinguishable on facts.\nIn view of above, addition confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) be restricted by\napplying appropriate g.p. rate on sale of Rs.3

PRIYANKA SURANA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 102/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

bogus without giving any example or evidence in a very lightly manner when purchases were made through valid Bills and there payments have been made through account payee cheque up to that date. 11.3 As the assessee maintaining Purchase /sales and other documents in this year the Deepawali was on 30.10.2016, Annkut on 31.10.2016 and on 01.11.2016 there was Bhaiya

RUKMANI JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR.-4 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 539/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) a
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 68

demonetization.:- vide entire para 2 as above. The ld. AO has not brought any evidence on record that the sales is not genuine, the ld. AO has not proved that the purchase was bogus

KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result ground no 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 648/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT-Th. V.H
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69A

purchase of jewellery or gold from the assessee 14 Kiran Fine Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT company which also shown that the assessee has been indulged in bogus booking of sale of gold and jewellery items. In view of that fact and evident that the assessee has been indulged in issuances of bogus sale bits and gold items shown

JITENDRA KUMAR TAHILRAMANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-2, JAIPUR., JAIPUR

ITA 928/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR (Th. V.C.)
Section 143(3)Section 68

bogus purchases, and non-existing cash balance in the books of account Similar observations were made by ITAT, Jaipur Bench, in the case of Raj Kumar Nowal, ITA No. 165/JP/2022, Jaipur Bench, 2.13. Attention is drawn towards Hon’ble ITAT, Vishakhapatnam Bench in the case of Hirapanna Jewellers, I.T.A. No. 253/Viz/2020. The facts in this case are that the assessee

SH. TARACHAND GUPTA,ALWAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA no

ITA 448/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

bogus.\nThe reasons like non- availability of the said two suppliers at the given\naddresses, non production of two suppliers by the assessee in spite of\nvarious opportunities granted. Assessee has failed to produce the\nowners of the two concerns, Hon'ble High Court also observed that\nmerely voucher of the import export challans or chilans of the custom\nclearance

ASHOK NARIYANI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1532/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Sh.Deepak Sharma, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr.-DR
Section 115BSection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

bogus purchases, and non-existing cash balance in the books of account\nSimilar observations were made by ITAT, Jaipur Bench, in the case of\nRaj Kumar Nowal, ITA No. 165/JP/2022, Jaipur Bench (DPB 108-166)\nAttention is drawn towards Hon'ble ITAT, Vishakhapatnam Bench in the case\nof Hirapanna Jewellers, I.T.A. No. 253/Viz/2020. The facts in this case are that

SHREE DURGA JEWELLERS,JAWAHAR NAGAR JAIPUR vs. AO CIRCLE 4 JAIPUR, CR BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Apr 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

purchase of gold\nbullion on date of announcement of demonetization of Rs.500 and Rs.1000 notes\nAssessee initially accepted such income and agreed to deposit taxes as per\nScheme Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana, 2016 However, later on it\ncontradicted with earlier statement and contended that amount so deposited was\nreceived from NS, owner of ALG, and invoices were issued

ABHAY CHORDIA,JAIPUR vs. THE ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1121/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, Ld. CIT a
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

purchases are not supported by the quantitative details and the AO did not make any enquiry on the material supplied by the assessee. Thus the AO neither brought any material on record to establish that the sale bills are bogus nor provided any evidence that such sales are bogus. It is also an open fact that the demonetization

M/S QUASAR DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,202, RIDHI SIDHI BHAWAN, AHINSA CIRCLE, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 157/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 115BSection 145(3)Section 69A

demonetization and even thereafter. The jewellery business was stated to have started in November, 2015. However, the AO pointed out that sale in FY 2015-16 was NIL AO also stated that accounts for A.Y. 2018-19 was unaudited, meaning thereby that sales were below the threshold limit for audit. All these go to show that the cash sales claimed