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.

244 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 73clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,275Delhi766Jaipur244Chennai193Kolkata191Ahmedabad183Surat145Bangalore124Karnataka102Chandigarh88Hyderabad82Indore76Pune75Cochin59Rajkot42Amritsar38Calcutta36Raipur35Nagpur33Visakhapatnam28Lucknow27Guwahati25Cuttack21Jodhpur19Allahabad5Agra3Jabalpur3Dehradun3Telangana3Panaji2Ranchi1Patna1Varanasi1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 153A124Section 143(3)94Addition to Income78Section 6842Section 271A37Section 13236Search & Seizure33Section 133A27Section 14720

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUNDER DAS SONKIYA, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 244 · Page 1 of 13

...
Undisclosed Income20
Disallowance19
Section 143(2)18
ITA 454/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

section 145(3) is invoked in this case. In view of the above discussion it is held that purchase of Rs. 1,73,34,424/- from M/s Aadilmpex, M/s Sun Diam, M/s Arihant Exports and M/s KriyaImpex Pvt Ltd. as discussed in above paras are bogus

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SUNDER DAS SONKIYA, JAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 453/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Oct 2024AY 2012-13
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

section 145(3) is invoked in this case. In view of\nthe above discussion it is held that purchase of Rs. 1,73,34,424/- from M/s Aadilmpex,\nM/s Sun Diam, M/s Arihant Exports and M/s Kriyalmpex Pvt Ltd. as discussed in above\nparas are bogus

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 purchases = Rs. 22,21,78,361 * 15%). Ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 30,13,471 (Total purchases = Rs.60,26,94,181* 0.5%) 2. Submission 2.1. The assessee for the year under consideration was liable to get his accounts audited as per the provisions of Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.2. The tax auditor

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 Jaipur28 Jun 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Ms Savita Bundas (CIT)
Section 147

bogus purchases = Rs. 22,21,78,361 * 15%). Ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 30,13,471 (Total purchases = Rs.60,26,94,181* 0.5%) 2. Submission 2.1. The assessee for the year under consideration was liable to get his accounts audited as per the provisions of Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.2. The tax auditor

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

Sections 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act. The entire purchases shown on the basis of fictitious invoices have been debited in the trading account since the transaction has been found to be bogus. The Tribunal having once come to a categorical finding that the amount of Rs. 2,92,93,288/-represented alleged purchases from bogus suppliers

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), JAIPUR vs. KIRAN INFRA ISPAT LIMITED, JAIPUR

ITA 535/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 68

Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business expenditure -\nAllowability of (Bogus purchase) - Certain portion of purchases made by\nassessee was disallowed Commissioner (Appeals) found that entire\ndisallowance was based on third party information gathered by Investigation\nWing of Department, which had not been independently subjected to further\nverification by Assessing Officer and he had not provided copy

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 115BBE no deduction is allowable to the assessee as assessee purchased the material from grey market in cash. A.Y. 2011-12- Revenue ‘’1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the face, the ld. CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,73,47,135/- u/s 69C on account of bogus

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 69C of the Act. Your honour,\nAssessing Officer was required to bring on record any material/details to controvert the\nclaim of the Assessee and/or to challenge the veracity of the documents filed by the\nAssessee. The Revenue has failed to do so. Kindly see Ld. AO order page no. 8 wherein the\nld. AO confirmed that M/s IMPEX FERRO

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 of Rs. 6,26,90,957/- made with M/s Atharv Business Pvt. Ltd, of Rs. 2,13,72,050/-, M/s Casper Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. of Rs. 2,83,18,907/- and from M/s Olive Overseas Pvt. Ltd, of Rs. 1,30,00,000/- are hereby added to the total income of the assessee treating the same as undisclosed

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 of Rs. 6,26,90,957/- made with M/s Atharv Business Pvt. Ltd, of Rs. 2,13,72,050/-, M/s Casper Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. of Rs. 2,83,18,907/- and from M/s Olive Overseas Pvt. Ltd, of Rs. 1,30,00,000/- are hereby added to the total income of the assessee treating the same as undisclosed

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

section 145 need not have been invoked and the addition for purchases as bogus was wrong as the consumption stood fully proved and the existence of selling parties could not be denied. It upheld the basis of valuation of closing stock of work-in-progress and hence deleted the additions of Rs. 1,48,93,286 made

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

73,007/- 14,55,832/- export remittance Export sales treated as bogus (after 5,38,911 60,57,063 1,31,02,491 allowing expenses @10% of turnover ) Total Addition by AO 5,38,911 60,57,063 1,31,02,491 First appellate proceeding / First round of litigation Govindam Export vs. DCIT 9. The assessee challenged the finding

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

bogus (after\nallowing expenses @10% of turnover)\nTotal Addition by AO\nAY 99-00\n5,98,789/-\n5,98,789/-\n59,878/-\n5,38,911\n5,38,911\nAY 2000-01\n67,30,070/-\n67,30,070/-\n6,73

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

bogus (after\nallowing expenses @10% of turnover)\nTotal Addition by AO\nAY 99-00\nAY 2000-01\nAY 2003-04\n5,98,789/- 67,30,070/- 1,45,58,323/-\n5,98,789/- 67,30,070/- 1,45,58,323/-\n59,878/- 6,73

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

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

73,007/-\n14,55,832/-\nExport sales treated as bogus (after\nallowing expenses @10% of turnover)\n5,38,911\n60,57,063\n1,31,02,491\nTotal Addition by AO\n5,38,911\n60,57,063\n1,31,02,491\nFirst appellate proceeding / First round of litigation\n9.\nThe assessee challenged the finding of the Id. AO for all these

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

bogus (after\nallowing expenses @10% of turnover)\nTotal Addition by AO\nAY 99-00\n5,98,789/-\n5,98,789/-\n59,878/-\n5,38,911\n5,38,911\nAY 2000-01\n67,30,070/-\n67,30,070/-\n6,73