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.

51 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 40Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai377Delhi329Chennai134Kolkata100Ahmedabad61Bangalore59Jaipur51Amritsar46Hyderabad45Indore32Chandigarh30Rajkot28Pune27Surat20Allahabad18Nagpur15Visakhapatnam13Cuttack13Jodhpur11Raipur10Guwahati9Lucknow7Agra5Dehradun3Ranchi3Calcutta3Patna2Karnataka2Cochin1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)47Addition to Income44Section 14823Section 14720Section 145(3)20Disallowance20Section 69C17Section 153A17Section 6817

M/S VIJAYETA BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 980/JPR/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Oct 2020AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (CIT)
Section 153ASection 253(5)Section 40A(3)

bogus gifts in the regular assessment proceedings, the proceedings for penalty were drawn under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The material found in the search may 14 M/s Vijayeta Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT be a ground for notice and assessment under Section 153A of the Act but that would not efface or terminate all the consequence, which

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

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

Showing 1–20 of 51 · Page 1 of 3

Section 40A(3)15
Search & Seizure9
Survey u/s 133A6
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

bogus and further that there is no quantitative reconciliation. With respect to such claimed purchases, some of the crucial observations and findings of ld. assessing officer in the initial assessment order and in the assessment order in set aside proceedings are as under:- • No name, address and confirmation have been filed from them. Thus, the parties shown do not exist

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

ITO WARD-7(2), JAIPUR, WARD-7(2), JAIPUR vs. M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY G-1/35 TO 37, 47, 48 EPIP, JEWELLERY ZONE, SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

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

ITA 845/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

bogus purchases could not be made. As submitted above, in the year under consideration, the books of accounts of appellant were rejected by Ld. AO and provisions of section 145(3) of the Act were invoked and trading addition was made by applying the GP rate in the original assessment completed u/s 143(3). Thereafter in reassessment order

M/S. SILVEX & COMPANY INDIA LTD.,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-7(4), JAIPUR

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

ITA 834/JPR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal(C.A.)For Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena (CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

bogus purchases could not be made. As submitted above, in the year under consideration, the books of accounts of appellant were rejected by Ld. AO and provisions of section 145(3) of the Act were invoked and trading addition was made by applying the GP rate in the original assessment completed u/s 143(3). Thereafter in reassessment order

SUBHASH PARETA,KOTA vs. ACIT, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the revenue are disposed off with above directions

ITA 434/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.L.Chandel (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 142Section 40A(3)Section 69Section 69C

purchased during financial year 2005-06, a perusal of the EMSD account (earnest money and security deposit) in the balance sheets as early as AY 2006-07 it is seen that amounts as big as 13,35,000/- are appearing towards NSCs. The EMSD account in the Balance Sheet for financial year ended 31.03.2009 shows balance

AMAN EXPORTS INTERNATIONAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 147/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Tatiwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) &
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)

section 40A(3) of the Act for an amount of Rs. 1,01,505/- which as also added as income of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved from the order of the Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. A propose to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is reiterated

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)

bogus purchases and freight payments made in relation thereto should have been disallowed or the assessee should have been held to be eligible for grant of deduction of a reasonable amount of purchase price of the oil cakes in question in view of the fact that receipts of the materials in question by the assessee were supported by various registers

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

Section 263 of the Act were proper and legal and the Tribunal committed a serious error in reversing such decisions. Mr. Arif Ali, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant in ITAT No. 44 of 2020 (Assessee-Gupta Agarwal) submitted that the facts which have been set out in the memorandum of appeal, is wholly incorrect and does not pertain

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

Section 263 of the Act were proper and legal and the Tribunal committed a serious error in reversing such decisions. Mr. Arif Ali, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant in ITAT No. 44 of 2020 (Assessee-Gupta Agarwal) submitted that the facts which have been set out in the memorandum of appeal, is wholly incorrect and does not pertain

MOTHERS EDUCATION HUB,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 618/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl.CIT
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 4Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

bogus or ingenuine, then the disallowance of the expenditure under s. 40A(2)(b) is not warranted in the absence of a definite finding that the payment made by the assessee is excessive or unreasonable in comparison to the fair market rent. In the case of MotilalLaxmichandSanghavi vs. Asstt. CIT (supra) the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal has considered

AMIT BHANDARI,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 350/JPR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Apr 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri B.P. Moondra (CA)For Respondent: Shri Raj Mehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 145(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)

purchases and expenses. He invoked the provisions of Section 40A(3) of the Act. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble M.P. High Court in the case of CIT-II Vs. Hindustan Equipment P. Ltd. (supra) and for the fact that the initial addition of Assessing Officer holding bogus

M/S AMRAPALI EXPORTS,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, the ground No

ITA 454/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jan 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Bafna (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

bogus concern which was operated by Shri Rajendra Jain without any physical deliveries and such purchases amounting to Rs 7,54,587/- were treated as non genuine and 25% of such purchases were brought to tax as unexplained expenditure besides addition of Rs. 15,092/-, being 2% of Rs. 7,54,587/- on account of alleged commission paid for obtaining

ITO, KOTA vs. BABU LAL SOMANI, KOTA

ITA 931/JPR/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra (CIT) fu/kZkfjrhdh vksj ls@
Section 133ASection 142Section 143(3)Section 69C

section 40A(3) of the Act on account of payment in cash beyond the prescribed threshold, the additions so made by the AO are hereby confirmed. 30. Regarding other expenses namely excessive/ bogus expenses amounting to Rs 2,63,189, unrecorded marble and granite purchase

LUNAWAT GEMS CORPORATION,JAIPUR vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR , JAIPUR

29. In view of the above discussion, the appeal filed by the assessee deserves to be dismissed

ITA 123/JPR/2024[A.Y. 1989-90 to 1999-2000 (Block Period)]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 May 2024

Bench: this Tribunal by way of ITSSA No. 13 & 14/JP/2003. The assessee filed cross-objections i.e. CO No. 20/JP/2003 and CO No. 21/JP/2003. Hon'ble ITAT Tribunal upheld the decision given by Learned CIT(A) regarding deletion of above said two additions. That is how, the Department felt dis-satisfied, and as such preferred D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 195/2004 before the Hon'ble High Court. 7. Hon'ble High Court, vide order dated 02.11.2016, disposed of the

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 158B

bogus purchases and freight payments made in relation thereto should have been disallowed or the assessee should have been held to be eligible for grant of deduction of a reasonable amount of purchase price of the oil cakes in question in view of the fact that receipts of the materials in question by the assessee were supported by various registers

SUNIL KUMAR TIWARI,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

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

ITA 507/JPR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 48Section 50CSection 50C(2)

purchase of the property is a capital investment and not for trading asset and urged that the provisions of 6 Shri Sunil Kumar Tiwari. section 40A(3) are not applicable. The ld. Counsel submitted that provisions of section 40A(3) were brought on statute for stopping bogus

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

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

VISION JEWELLERS,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 530/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

40A(3), assessee offered that its income might be computed by applying net profit rate of 8 per cent of gross receipts - Assessing Officer having accepted 8 VISION JEWELLERS VS DCIT CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR assessee's offer, made addition in terms of section 44AD - He also passed a penalty order under section 271(1)(c) - Tribunal, however, set aside said

DESIGN CORE,JAIPUR vs. ITO, JAIPUR

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

ITA 617/JPR/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai (DCIT)
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 234BSection 244A(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)

40A(3) of the Act of Rs.25,260/- being 20% of total purchases of Rs.1,26,294/- being the payment made in cash to M/s United Iron Traders, Udaipur. The disallowances so made by the AO and being confirmed by the Id. CIT(A), is being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts of the case, the same