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.

323 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 142clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,398Delhi970Kolkata367Jaipur323Chennai178Chandigarh159Ahmedabad157Surat149Bangalore135Indore120Pune106Karnataka102Rajkot97Hyderabad87Visakhapatnam70Raipur66Cochin58Calcutta45Amritsar43Nagpur42Guwahati38Lucknow37Agra29Patna27Allahabad26Jodhpur21Ranchi17Cuttack14Varanasi7Jabalpur6SC4Telangana4Dehradun3Orissa2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Bombay1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)85Addition to Income71Section 14747Section 14842Section 153A37Section 26334Section 133A30Section 142(1)25Section 6823

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

142(1) of the Act has been issued to the assessee on 30.08.2018, 06.10.2018 & 10.10.2018 requiring the details/information. In response, the AR of the assessee filed his submission dated 15.10.2018 and main content of the same is as under:- "As regards the issue of alleged bogus/un-verifiable purchases it is respectfully submitted that in assessee's case there is no issue

Showing 1–20 of 323 · Page 1 of 17

...
Natural Justice15
Bogus/Accommodation Entry14
Survey u/s 133A14

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

bogus sale invoices by the DGIT(Inv), Mumbai, leads one to conclude that the purchases from these aforementioned parties are not established. The purchases have failed to stand the test of scrutiny, as the appellant has failed to establish that the transactions are genuine. It is clear that these expenses have been debited in the books of account to reduce

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)

bogus sale invoices by the DGIT (Inv), Mumbai, leads one to conclude that the purchases from these aforementioned parties are not established. The purchases have failed to stand the test of scrutiny, as the appellant has failed to establish that the transactions are genuine. It is clear that these expenses have been debited in the books of account to reduce

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

bogus purchases, and non- existing 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 - Appeal of the revenue is dismissed. 18 Alka

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. M/S JK INTERNATIONAL, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue is dismissed with

ITA 716/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Oct 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar,, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta, (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10ASection 115BSection 36(1)(va)Section 69C

section 69C is not attracted. The relevant para of he judgement are 10 to 12 and the same are reproduced (mentioned at page 24 of the ld. CIT(A) ‘s order).. Considering all the above, I am of the view that even if 25% of purchases from concerns are treated as bogus it has a revenue neutral effect

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

section 250 of the Income-tax Act,1961 passed by the Ld. Commissioner\nof Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) vide DIN No.\nITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072584754(1) on 27.01.2025 for the Assessment Year 2018-19.\nIn support of Grounds of Appeal, the Assessee is furnishing herewith Ground wise written\nsubmission, along with supporting documentary evidence(s) and/or documents as specified

GEM MART INDIA PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 46/JPR/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Feb 2018AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 132(1)Section 133Section 143(3)Section 145Section 145(3)Section 153A

section 145(3) regarding estimation of profit. The AO followed the order of flagship company of the group M/s Clarity Gold Pvt. Ltd. wherein gross profit rate of 17% has been applied. After giving detail reasons, it was held by the AO that since the nature of business and modus operandi of the assessee company is similar to that

DURGA PRASAD SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1038/JPR/2025[A.Y. 2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur20 Nov 2025

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

For Appellant: Sh. G. M. Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ghanshyam Meena, JCIT
Section 115BSection 148Section 2Section 69C

bogus purchases was Rs. 89,03,956/-. During the assessment proceedings conducted under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act, multiple statutory notices were issued under sections 143(2) and 142

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

bogus purchases as compared to G.P. on normal purchases In the present case also, since the ld. AO has examined the profit worked out on unaccounted purchases and has accepted such working prepared by assessee by observing that : “It is also submitted that assessee company has now offered the additional undisclosed income based on GP rate of its business activity

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

142(1 )/143(2) of the Act. Another, penalty under Section 272A(1)(c) was imposed by the JCIT, Range for non compliance of summon issued under section 131 of the IT Act. It is also noted from the remand report of the AO that again an opportunity was provide to the appellant by the AO to explain its case

SHRI PREM INDUSTRIES,BHARATPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, BHARATPUR

The appeal is disposed of, and the matter is remanded to

ITA 877/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 271ASection 69CSection 70

bogus parties and the assessee when confronted by the GST authorities, paid the corresponding GST. Therefore the facts of the present case are entirely different than the case relied upon by the assessee. Moreover, the assessee did not provide either confirmed copy of accounts or ITR of the other parties from whom goods were purported to have been purchased. Moreover

M/S. VAIBHAV GLOBAL (GEMS) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals for the A

ITA 1347/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2020AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma &For Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta (JCIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149

purchases and the assessee has availed bogus entries from M/s Impex Gems and M/s Jewel Diam. Thus, it is a new material came to the knowledge of the A.O. after scrutiny assessment and therefore, proviso to Section 148 of the Act cannot be invoked. The ld DR has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

M/S. VAIBHAV GLOBAL (GEMS) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals for the A

ITA 1346/JPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2020AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma &For Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta (JCIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149

purchases and the assessee has availed bogus entries from M/s Impex Gems and M/s Jewel Diam. Thus, it is a new material came to the knowledge of the A.O. after scrutiny assessment and therefore, proviso to Section 148 of the Act cannot be invoked. The ld DR has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

M/S. VAIBHAV GLOBAL (GEMS) LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

In the result, appeals for the A

ITA 1348/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2020AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma &For Respondent: Shri K.C. Gupta (JCIT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149

purchases and the assessee has availed bogus entries from M/s Impex Gems and M/s Jewel Diam. Thus, it is a new material came to the knowledge of the A.O. after scrutiny assessment and therefore, proviso to Section 148 of the Act cannot be invoked. The ld DR has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. JADAU JEWELLERS & MFG (P) LTD., JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 502/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal and Shri Gulshan Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl.CIT - DR
Section 142Section 144Section 153A

bogus purchase bill. 5 M/s. Jadau Jewellers & Manufacturers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 2, Jaipur 6. Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case the ld CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition of Rs.1,66,336/- made by disallowing 15% of the total expenses found recorded in the books of accounts named “Jadavji”maintained

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

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, by DCIT, Circle-02, Jaipur. 2 Abhay Chordia vs. DCIT 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. That the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining disallowance of Rs. 74,402/- in regard to employees contribution to PF and ESI deposited by the appellant within the due date

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR vs. MOTISONS JEWELLERS LTDL, JAIPUR

ITA 161/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

142(1) of the Act was called for vide questionnaire through ITBA. In compliance of the said notices, the assessee submitted details/information through e- proceedings. The ld. AO has examined the details so filed by the assessee. The assessee company is engaged in the business of Jewellery. 5. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee

PINCITY JEWLHOUSE PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. PCIT, CC, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 63/JPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: the date of hearing." 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 58 days in filing of the present appeal by the assessee for which the Id. AR of 3

For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Ajey Malik, CIT
Section 10ASection 147Section 253(5)Section 263Section 5

Bogus Purchase and ESI/PF 2014-2015 Claiming Deduction Deduction allowed SCN: 244-247 [PBII] (Reassessment) U/s 10AA by dividing Reply: 248-251 [PBII] AO: 17.12.18 expenses at Order: 122-139 [PBII] proportionate basis 2015-2016 Claiming Deduction Deduction allowed Notice: 252-255[PBII] (Reassessment) U/s 10AA by dividing Reply: 256-259 [PBII] AO: 17.12.18 expenses at Order