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.

68 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 153Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai172Delhi93Jaipur68Cochin57Bangalore36Chennai34Amritsar33Chandigarh23Guwahati22Allahabad17Visakhapatnam16Ahmedabad15Kolkata15Hyderabad14Nagpur6Pune6Dehradun5Lucknow5Surat4Raipur2Indore1Jodhpur1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 271A95Section 153A92Section 143(3)53Addition to Income42Section 13230Section 6820Section 139(1)19Search & Seizure15Section 153B(1)(b)

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

section 260A (set aside) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, by DCIT, Circle-01, Jaipur. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - 2 Dinesh Haldia vs. DCIT “I That the learned CIT (Appeal) erred in sustaining addition u/s. 69C of the I.T. Act made by the AO at Rs. 13,00,000/- in the total income

Showing 1–20 of 68 · Page 1 of 4

14
Disallowance13
Section 132(4)11
Bogus/Accommodation Entry11

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

bogus purchases. He further submitted that the approval of higher authorities as required u/s 153D was not obtained as nothing has been mentioned about the obtaining of approval from Additional Commissioner or Joint Commissioner as mandated in section 153D of Income Tax Act in the order under disputed. The details of approval, if any taken, have not mentioned

RAVI HALDIA,C/O HALDIA MULTIPOINT HOUSE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly

ITA 65/JPR/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Apr 2024AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Board (CA)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) a
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 153ASection 260A

bogus purchases but the issue is in regard to purchases made in the regular course of business but some of the purchases could not be got verified mainly on account of non availability of correct postal address of few sellers at that point of time, i.e. in AY 2004-05. However confirmed copy of statement of account of the seller

RAVI HALDIA,HALDIA MULTIPOINT HOUSE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly

ITA 64/JPR/2024[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Apr 2024AY 2005-06

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

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Board (CA)For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik (CIT) a
Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 153ASection 260A

bogus purchases but the issue is in regard to purchases made in the regular course of business but some of the purchases could not be got verified mainly on account of non availability of correct postal address of few sellers at that point of time, i.e. in AY 2004-05. However confirmed copy of statement of account of the seller

SMT. MAMTA HALDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 1351/JPR/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Oct 2020AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Sh. M.L Borad (Advocate)For Respondent: Ms Chanchal Meena (JCIT)
Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 145Section 153A

section 145, applied a GP rate of 30% and accordingly, the AO worked out trading addition of Rs.2,22,208/-. Simultaneously, the AO worked out addition for cash purchases/purchases from unregistered dealers at Rs.11,84,063/- being 100% of such cash purchase/purchases from unregistered dealers. As the addition for such purchases of Rs.11,84,063/- were more than the trading

SMT. MAMTA HALDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 1349/JPR/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Oct 2020AY 2003-04
For Appellant: Sh. M.L Borad (Advocate)For Respondent: Ms Chanchal Meena (JCIT)
Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 145Section 153A

section 145, applied a GP rate of 30% and accordingly, the AO worked out trading addition of Rs.2,22,208/-. Simultaneously, the AO worked out addition for cash purchases/purchases from unregistered dealers at Rs.11,84,063/- being 100% of such cash purchase/purchases from unregistered dealers. As the addition for such purchases of Rs.11,84,063/- were more than the trading

SMT. MAMTA HALDIA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 1350/JPR/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Oct 2020AY 2004-05
For Appellant: Sh. M.L Borad (Advocate)For Respondent: Ms Chanchal Meena (JCIT)
Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 145Section 153A

section 145, applied a GP rate of 30% and accordingly, the AO worked out trading addition of Rs.2,22,208/-. Simultaneously, the AO worked out addition for cash purchases/purchases from unregistered dealers at Rs.11,84,063/- being 100% of such cash purchase/purchases from unregistered dealers. As the addition for such purchases of Rs.11,84,063/- were more than the trading

SMT. INDIRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1384/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271A

153B of the IT Act on 27.12.2017 at the total income of Rs. 4,52,42,549/- which includes addition of Rs. 43,639/- on account of short declaration of LTCG turnover and addition of Rs. 1,42,490/- on account of disallowance of interest claim expenses. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB

SMT. JYOTI AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA nos

ITA 1373/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 271A

153B of the IT Act on 27.12.2017 at the total income of Rs. 4,30,65,828/- which includes addition of Rs. 42,379/- on account of short declaration of LTCG turnover and addition of Rs. 1,23,519/- on account of disallowance of interest claim expenses. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

ITA 997/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Dec 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal & Shri Gulshan Agarwal (CAs)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 68

153B(1)(b) of the IT Act. 2. Common grounds have been raised by the assessee as well as by the department in these appeals. However, for the sake of convenience and the issue involved in these appeals, the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14 are taken as a separate group of cross appeals due to the reason that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA vs. M/S KOTA DALL MILL, KOTA

ITA 1057/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Dec 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal & Shri Gulshan Agarwal (CAs)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 68

153B(1)(b) of the IT Act. 2. Common grounds have been raised by the assessee as well as by the department in these appeals. However, for the sake of convenience and the issue involved in these appeals, the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14 are taken as a separate group of cross appeals due to the reason that

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

ITA 998/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Dec 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal & Shri Gulshan Agarwal (CAs)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 68

153B(1)(b) of the IT Act. 2. Common grounds have been raised by the assessee as well as by the department in these appeals. However, for the sake of convenience and the issue involved in these appeals, the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14 are taken as a separate group of cross appeals due to the reason that

M/S KOTA DALL MILL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

ITA 999/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Dec 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal & Shri Gulshan Agarwal (CAs)For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)Section 68

153B(1)(b) of the IT Act. 2. Common grounds have been raised by the assessee as well as by the department in these appeals. However, for the sake of convenience and the issue involved in these appeals, the assessment years 2010-11 to 13-14 are taken as a separate group of cross appeals due to the reason that

LATE SHRI JITENDRA NAGAR THROUGH HIS L/R SMT. DEEPIKA NAGAR,BARAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD BARAN, BARAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1382/JPR/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Oct 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Sidharth Ranka, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT a
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69A

Bogus purchases - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, as per facts of the case, dates of the notices issued and the decision in the case of Kachrulal Jitendra Kuma [2025 (2) TMI 865 - ITAT RAIPUR] we find that the issue in the present case is squarely covered in favour of the assessee. Evidently, under the facts and circumstances of the present case

SHRI RAJENDRA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

ITA 1375/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 251(2)Section 271A

153B of the IT Act at the total income of Rs. 12,24,18,200/-. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the IT Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 12.01.2018. The AO while passing the penalty order dated 21st June, 2018 has levied the penalty under section 271AAB

SMT. APARNA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

ITA 1378/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 251(2)Section 271A

153B of the IT Act on 07.12.2017 at the total income of Rs. 9,69,30,410/- in which no addition was made. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the IT Act by issuing a show cause notice dated 07.12.2017. The AO while passing the penalty order dated 21st June

SHRI AJAY AGARWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

ITA 1383/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 251(2)Section 271A

153B of the IT Act on 27.12.2017 at the total income of Rs. 11,18,77,980/- which includes an addition of Rs. 9,000/- on account of short disclosure of commission income and an addition of Rs. 41,778/- on account of mismatch in the share trading turnover. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under

SHRI VASUDEV AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue

ITA 1376/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 251(2)Section 271A

153B of the IT Act on 19.12.2017 at the total income of Rs. 11,98,99,765/- which includes an addition of Rs. 9,000/- on account of short disclosure of commission income and an addition of Rs. 39,115/- on account of mismatch in the share trading turnover. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under

SMT. APARNA AGRAWAL,KOTA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTA

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

ITA 1379/JPR/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2019AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 251(2)Section 271A

153B(1)(b) of the IT Act on 27.12.2017 at the total income of Rs. 5,73,90,530/- in which addition of Rs 82,655 was made on account of interest and Rs 42,677 on account of undisclosed turnover. The AO then initiated the proceedings for levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the IT Act by issuing

INCOME TAX OFFICER , SIKAR vs. BHASKAR CHAUHAN, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 868/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Shri S.L.Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs Alka Gautam, CIT-DR a
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 251Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

153B and section 153C, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to the assessment made under this section; (ii) in an assessment or reassessment made in respect of an assessment year under this section, the tax shall be chargeable at the rate or rates as applicable to such assessment year. Assessment of income of any other person. 153C