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.

246 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 100clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,070Delhi745Jaipur246Surat235Chennai174Kolkata153Bangalore145Ahmedabad143Karnataka106Chandigarh97Pune85Hyderabad75Indore59Cochin57Raipur41Rajkot37Nagpur37Calcutta37Guwahati34Visakhapatnam31Lucknow31Amritsar25Cuttack21Allahabad20Patna13Jodhpur12Dehradun7Telangana7Agra5Jabalpur4Panaji3SC3Varanasi3Orissa2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Ranchi1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)98Addition to Income83Section 153A64Section 14758Section 26348Section 14842Section 6838Section 271A35Section 133A27

JEWELS EMPORIUM A LEGACY,JAIPUR vs. ACIT,CC-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1215/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT,Sr.-DR a
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

section 145(3), particularly when other ingredients of the transactions are undisputed. Next allegation to treat the purchases as bogus is that, the director of one of the concerns, M/s Clarity Gold (P) Ltd had admitted in a statement recorded u/s 132(4) that 95% of its sales were bogus. In this regard the assessee humbly submits that, there

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BEAWAR vs. SHRI MANOJ AMAR CHAND TAILOR, MASUDA BIJAINAGAR

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

Showing 1–20 of 246 · Page 1 of 13

...
Disallowance23
Search & Seizure17
Survey u/s 133A15
ITA 819/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Ms Savita Bundas (CIT)
Section 147

section 145(3) of I.T. Act, 1961 are clearly applicable in this case of the books of accounts of the assessee was rejected. Considering these facts and reply furnished by the AR of the assessee, the Assessing Officer has made disallowance of purchase @ 15% out of total purchase of Sh. Manoj Amarchand Tailor, Bijainagar Vs.ITO, Ward-1, Beawar Rs.22

SHRI MANOJ AMAR CHAND TAILOR,MASUDA BIJAINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BEAWAR

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

ITA 910/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Ms Savita Bundas (CIT)
Section 147

section 145(3) of I.T. Act, 1961 are clearly applicable in this case of the books of accounts of the assessee was rejected. Considering these facts and reply furnished by the AR of the assessee, the Assessing Officer has made disallowance of purchase @ 15% out of total purchase of Sh. Manoj Amarchand Tailor, Bijainagar Vs.ITO, Ward-1, Beawar Rs.22

DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR vs. M/S KANDOI METAL POWDERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 244/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

100 % purchases as non-genuine only added a justified percentage of 25 %. In last the ld. DR has relied on the recent judgment of the M/s. Clarity Gold in ITA No. 125/2014 delivered by the jurisdictional high court to support his arguments. The ld. DR also relied upon the findings of the following cases laws • [2015] 58 taxmann.com 44 (Gujarat

DINESH HALDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

ITA 384/JPR/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Dheeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 153ASection 260ASection 69C

100% exporter. During the course of assessment proceedings the AO has noticed that the assessee was not maintaining quantitative details of day to day purchases and manufacturing of the items. Further on verification it was also noticed by him that the purchases was made from M/s. Vinayak Overseas and M/s IVIH Gems. The purchases from above parties were established

SHRI KHANDELWAL DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 375/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Him On The Reason Of Issuing Notice U/S 148 On Borrowed Satisfaction Of Another Wing Of The Department.

For Appellant: Sh. Mukesh Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 148

100% addition in the returned income. In first appeal the ld. CIT (A) sustained the findings of the ld. AO but restricted the addition in all the three years @ 12.50% of the amount of purchases made from such concerns. On further appeal the Hon`ble ITAT deleted the whole addition by observing that the assessee has already declared an overall

SHRI KHANDELWAL DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 245/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Khandelwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri C.P. Meena (Addl.CIT) a
Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

section 145(3) is illegal and unjustified and deserves to be quashed. Ground No. 1 : That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT (A) has erred seriously on facts in sustaining the action of the ld. AO in considering purchases of a sum of Rs. 3,21,93,468 made from 11 parties as bogus

RAVI KUMAR RAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

Appeals are allowed and impugned orders are set aside

ITA 1324/JPR/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) which was partly considered by Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 14-12-2018 in Appeal No. 474/2015-16. Vide that order Ld. CIT(A) restricted the addition from Rs.6,01,459/- to Rs.2,67,647/- by applying G.P. Rate @ 12%. Hence, the addition of Rs.2,67,647/- was sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore, Ld. AO passed penalty order dated 01-05-2020 wherein the AO imposed the penalty on the assessee for an amount of Rs.1,03,150/- u/s Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by observing as under:-

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR (Thru: V.C)
Section 148Section 271(1)

bogus 6,01,459/- 6,01,459/- purchase Total income 9,53,339/- Rounded off 9,53,340/- In that assessment order ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© vide notice dated 25-01-2016. SHRI RAVI KUMAR RAWAT VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 2.2 Assessee challenged that order of assessment before the ld. CIT(A) which was partly

RAVI KUMAR RAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2, JAIPUR

Appeals are allowed and impugned orders are set aside

ITA 1323/JPR/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR (Thru: V.C)
Section 148Section 271(1)

bogus 6,01,459/- 6,01,459/- purchase Total income 9,53,339/- Rounded off 9,53,340/- In that assessment order ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© vide notice dated 25-01-2016. SHRI RAVI KUMAR RAWAT VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 2.2 Assessee challenged that order of assessment before the ld. CIT(A) which was partly

JAJOO RASHMI REFRACTORIES LIMITED,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 4-JAIPUR,, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 209/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Ms. Prabha Rana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 131Section 145Section 147Section 69C

100/- and our amount of\nRs.1,82,05,040/- is GST of Rs.27,77,040/-.\nOur purchase cost was Rs.1,54,28,000/- and input of GST amount was\nRs.27,77,040/-.\nFor Jajoo Rashmi Refractories Pvt. Ltd.\nDirector/ Authorised Signatory\nCorrespondence Office.: B-7, Sector-3, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Opp. Biyani College, Jaipur - 302 039, India\nTel

SHANKAR JHALANI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1053/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT)
Section 144Section 40

100% of bogus purchases was justified 5. 178 CTR 420 (Raj) -Indian woollen Carpet Factory- held that onus is on assessee to prove the genuineness of the purchases. 6. 186 CTR 718 (MP) - VISP Pvt. Ltd.- Same view was taken as in case of Indian woolen 7. 227 ITR 391 (Raj) - Golcha Properties

SHIVAM READYMIX PRIVATE LIMITED,NEEMUCH vs. THE PCIT(CENTRAL), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 412/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal (C.A.)For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 263Section 69C

100% of unaccounted purchases of Rs. 1,28,11,487/-, which is against the settled legal position, according to which only profit earned on sale of such unaccounted goods could be disallowed and not the entire purchases. 2.1 That, Id. PCIT has further erred in disregarding the profit worked by assessee and accepted by ld.AO on such unaccounted purchases merely

KANDOI METAL POWDERS MANUFACTRUING COMPANY,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CC-3, JAIPUR

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

ITA 122/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) a
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

bogus purchase was involved and in that case profit estimated @ 25 %. Thus, he supported the addition made by the AO @ 25 % of purchase. The ld. DR also draw our attention to the findings recorded by the AO that how the exact credit and debit transactions recorded in the parties from where these purchases are accounted. He has also drawn

ABHAY CHORDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 291/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur03 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Deeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69C

100 per cent of the bogus purchases is confirmed. Therefore, addition of 25% of the impugned purchases is found to be reasonable. Similar addition was upheld in the case of M/s. Vijay Proteins Ltd. vs. Asst. CIT [1996] 58 ITD 428 (Ahd.). Therefore the addition made by AO with regard to 25 percent of the bogus purchases and the commission

GOVINDAM EXPORT,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JPR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the results all the appeals filed by the assessee ITA Nos

ITA 429/JPR/2024[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2024AY 1998-99

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Agarwal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 260ASection 80H

Section 108 of Custom Act Thus, bench noted that revenue has no material to support that the assessee has made any bogus or unverifiable purchases. Further, the assessee filed confirmation letter of M/s Ganpati Exports which was rejected not on the basis of material but on surmises and conjectures. 29. Per contra, the ld. DR representing revenue heavily relied upon

K L TAMBI AND CO,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

27. As a result, the appeal is partly allowed, and addition of 20% of bogus or purchases from unverifiable persons or entities is upheld as regards AY 2005-06

ITA 104/JPR/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: This Appellate Tribunal

For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 271(1)(c)

section 145(2) of the Act. 16. While relying on decision in N.K. Industries Ltd.’s case (supra), by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, learned DR for the Revenue has contended that therein the findings of the Tribunal that the amount of Rs.2,92,93,288/-represented alleged purchases from bogus suppliers, 12 M/s K L Tambi & Co. vs DCIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 vs. M/S N. M. AGROFOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 54/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT lquo
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

bogus. Hon'ble High Court has also dealt with arguments of assessee that he was denied right of cross examination of individuals whose statements led to enquiry. Ld. AR arguments that no question of law has been framed in case of Udit Kalra also does not make any tangible difference to decision of this Case, Since additions have been confirmed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, INCOME TAX OFFICE vs. SHRI SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 55/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT lquo
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

bogus. Hon'ble High Court has also dealt with arguments of assessee that he was denied right of cross examination of individuals whose statements led to enquiry. Ld. AR arguments that no question of law has been framed in case of Udit Kalra also does not make any tangible difference to decision of this Case, Since additions have been confirmed

GOVINDAM EXPORT,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

ITA 433/JPR/2024[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2024AY 2003-2004
For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Agarwal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 260A

Section 108 of Custom Act\n95 to 115\n116 to 125\n126 to 127\n128 to 146\nThus, bench noted that revenue has no material to support that the\nassessee has made any bogus or unverifiable purchases. Further, the\nassessee filed confirmation letter of M/s Ganpati Exports which was\nrejected not on the basis of material but on surmises

GOVINDAM EXPORT,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

ITA 430/JPR/2024[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2024AY 1999-2000
For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Agarwal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 145(3)Section 153DSection 260ASection 80H

Section 108 of Custom Act\n95 to 115\n116 to 125\n126 to 127\n128 to 146\nThus, bench noted that revenue has no material to support that the\nassessee has made any bogus or unverifiable purchases. Further, the\nassessee filed confirmation letter of M/s Ganpati Exports which was\nrejected not on the basis of material but on surmises