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.

162 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 127clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai383Delhi375Jaipur162Karnataka101Bangalore80Chandigarh76Ahmedabad63Cochin57Kolkata48Indore43Hyderabad35Chennai35Calcutta34Surat31Nagpur26Visakhapatnam25Raipur20Pune19Cuttack15Jodhpur15Lucknow9Amritsar7Rajkot6Panaji3Patna2Jabalpur2Guwahati1Varanasi1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 26378Addition to Income75Section 143(3)67Section 14752Section 153A44Section 14842Section 133A34Section 6832Section 153C26

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

bogus is nor sustainable, on the ground that purchases have not been claimed as expenses, hence rejected It has been claimed that assessee has earned commission income of Rs.5,24,221/- on all such transactions by keeping mark up (profit margin) in the range of 0.12% to 0.15%. From the details filed by the appellant, it is seen that

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

ITA 819/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur

Showing 1–20 of 162 · Page 1 of 9

...
Survey u/s 133A25
Search & Seizure17
Disallowance16
28 Jun 2022
AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Ms Savita Bundas (CIT)
Section 147

bogus is nor sustainable, on the ground that purchases have not been claimed as expenses, hence rejected It has been claimed that assessee has earned commission income of Rs.5,24,221/- on all such transactions by keeping mark up (profit margin) in the range of 0.12% to 0.15%. From the details filed by the appellant, it is seen that

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

Section 147/148 of the Act to reopen the assessments for the AYs in question does not satisfy the requirement of law.". The facts of the present case are exactly similar to above cited four cases and hence it is sincerely requested that the whole proceedings u/s 147 may kindly be declared void ab initio and the order so passed

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

127 Overseas before the Assessing Officer Copy of statement of Shri Gauri Shankar Pareek, Prop. M/s. Vinayak 128 to 146 Overseas recorded by Custom Authority under 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

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 accommodation entries from M/s.Kalyani Suppliers Private Limited and M/s.Everlink Vyapar Private Limited in the form of purchase transactions in the books of the taxpayer. Ground-4. While granting relief to the assessee, the learned CIT appeals has ignored the test of human probability and surrounding circumstances as laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the cases of Sumati

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 accommodation entries from M/s.Kalyani Suppliers Private Limited and M/s.Everlink Vyapar Private Limited in the form of purchase transactions in the books of the taxpayer. Ground-4. While granting relief to the assessee, the learned CIT appeals has ignored the test of human probability and surrounding circumstances as laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the cases of Sumati

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

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

SHRI SUNDER DAS SONKIA,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1383/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1383/Jp/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Sunder Das Sonkia, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. Sonkia Bhawan, Sms, Highway, Ward-1(2), Jaipur. Jaipur. Pan No.: Akhps 7413 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 09/Jp/2020 Assessment Year: 2010-11 I.T.O., Cuke Shri Sunder Das Sonkhiya, Vs. Ward-1(2), Prop.- M/S Naveen Jewellers, Jaipur. Sonkhiya Bhawan, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur. Pan No.: Akhps 7413 G Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri S.R. Sharma (Ca) & Shri Rajnikant Bhatra (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 18/01/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. These Are The Appeal Filed By The Assessee & The Cross Appeal Filed By The Revenue Arise Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 08/11/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee & The Revenue Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul (Addl.CIT)
Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

bogus purchases from four companies. The A.O. has not examined the information received by him to verify whether assessee has made any purchases from these parties and whether the same is reflected in the accounts or not. The reasons recorded are vague, all consequent proceeding are also illegal and invalid. The AO mechanically and blindly 7 ITA 1383/JP/2019 & 09/JP/2020_

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

ITA 431/JPR/2024[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2024AY 2000-2001
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

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

ITA 432/JPR/2024[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Aug 2024AY 2001-2002
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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR vs. M/S. LAKHI GEMS, JAIPUR

In the result, ground of appeal taken by the Revenue as well as that of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1306/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jun 2021AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147

section 145(3) and made trading addition of Rs.18,19,533/- by applying 25% of the alleged unverifiable purchases of Rs. 72,78,133/-. On appeal, the ld CIT(A) has upheld the rejection of books of accounts and has restricted the trading addition of Rs 3 lacs. Against the said findings, both the Revenue as well as assessee

PANKAJ KUMAR MITTAL,DHOLPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4 BHARATPUR, BHARATPUR

In the result, stands allowed

ITA 393/JPR/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019
For Appellant: Shri Rahul Pandya, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 144ASection 148Section 271ASection 44A

bogus purchases of amounting to\nRs.26,76,210/-from the two entities Madan Lal Madho Prasadand\nM/s Kalki Trading Company amounting to Rs.15,51,210/- and Rs.\n11,25,000/- respectively\nThat the Humble Appellant Paid through NEFT to\nMadanLalMadhoPrasad (AABPG 0387 R) Rs.3,00,000/- on Dt 28-\n11-2017 &Rs.5,00,000/- on Dt 31-01-2018, thus

SHRI ARNAV GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2(4), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 275/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Prakash Meena,Addl.CIT
Section 10(38)Section 68

127 DTR 241(SC). The AO has not controverted the evidence of purchase bills, payment of consideration through bank, DEMAT account, allotment of amalgamated shares, sale of shares through stock exchange at prevailing price, payment of STT etc. Hon’ble Ahmedabad bench of ITAT also in the case of Smt. Sunita Jain vs ITO (Case law Paper Book Pages

BIRENDRA SINGH NIRBHAY,SIRSI ROAD JAIPUR RAJASTHAN vs. ITO WARD 3(1) JAIPUR, NCRB INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT STATUE CIRCLE JAIPUR RAJASTHAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 704/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 132(4)Section 69C

127 DTR 241(SC). The AO has not controverted\nthe evidence of purchase bills, payment of consideration through\nbank, dematerialization of shares in the DEMAT account, allotment of\namalgamated shares, sale of shares through stock exchange at prevailing price,\npayment of STT etc. In absence of any contrary fact, the mere reliance by the\nAssessing Officer on the report

SAKET AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3) JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 646/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Ms. Satwika Jhan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT) a
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

purchases were bogus has no legs to stand on. The finding of the CIT(A) and ITAT that the said liability which was converted into an unsecured loan and subsequently stood repaid has not been challenged by the Revenue in the present appeal. Further, the reliance placed by the ITATon the judgment of this Court in Shri Vardhman Overseas (supra

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

bogus purchases, and non­existing cash balance in the books of account. The AO did not even reject the books of accounts of the appellant under the provision of section 145(3) of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the revenue on the facts and circumstance of the case is not accepted and we see no reason to find any fault

KALINDEE ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , JAIPUR

ITA 770/JPR/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Oct 2024AY 2010-2011
For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

purchases of shares, then the amount received by the company\nwould be regarded as a application receipt.\n4. 397 ITR 136 CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Bom)\n[DOD:05.07.2017]\nCash Credits\nCompany Share application money Issuance of shares\nGenuineness and creditworthiness of persons allotted shares proved by assessee\nNon-appearance of such parties before Assessing Officer irrelevant – Deletion

SHRI ASHNUTH GOYAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, WARD -1(3), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 276/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Him. Thus, The Addition Of Rs. 30,04,864/- So Uphold Deserves To Be Deleted. Shri Ashnuth Goyal Vs Acit, Ward 1(3), Jaipur

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 68

127 DTR 241(SC). The AO has not controverted the evidence of purchase bills, payment of consideration through bank, DEMAT account, allotment of amalgamated shares, sale of shares through stock exchange at prevailing price, payment of STT etc. Hon’ble Ahmedabad bench of ITAT also in the case of Smt. Sunita Jain vs ITO (Caselaw Paper Book Pages

RADHAKISHAN BENIWAL,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA no

ITA 695/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CA &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 139Section 144Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 251Section 68

127 of the Act shall apply to the assessment made in accordance the said Scheme subject to the following exceptions, modifications and adaptations Clause (2) of the Notification Nos. 60 and 61 of 2020 dated 13-8-2020 enable the Principal Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General in charge of National e-Assessment Centre, at any stage of the assessment