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.

55 results for “bogus purchases”+ Addition to Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai8,717Delhi3,078Kolkata1,269Ahmedabad705Jaipur697Chennai658Pune626Surat472Bangalore400Chandigarh343Hyderabad260Indore224Raipur209Rajkot134Nagpur130Amritsar127Karnataka116Lucknow91Cuttack86Visakhapatnam82Guwahati77Cochin72Calcutta64Agra61Jodhpur55Patna42Ranchi37Allahabad35Dehradun23Telangana22Jabalpur14Varanasi9Panaji7SC5Orissa3Gauhati2Bombay1Punjab & Haryana1Rajasthan1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)70Addition to Income52Section 153A42Section 14828Section 271(1)(c)20Section 6818Section 143(2)13Section 145(3)13Section 13213Disallowance

SMT. PUSHPA CHHAJER,JODHPUR vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 136/JODH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Aug 2023AY 2014-15
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234B

addition. Alternative Submission, It is settled principle of law that “Entire purchase cannot be added to income when assessee not able to prove genuineness of supplier, restricted to profit element embedded in bogus

DINESH KUMAR JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. ITO, BALOTRA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 374/JODH/2019[2011-12]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 55 · Page 1 of 3

11
Survey u/s 133A7
Natural Justice7
ITAT Jodhpur
16 Oct 2023
AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No.374/Jodh/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

bogus. The assessee has completed the onus by submitting the documents about genuineness of purchase. The said purchase of the assesseeis already declared in books of accounts and the transaction is covered the Income tax payment on net profit. When there is no question about the genuineness of the purchased this addition

ACIT, PAOTA C ROAD vs. VARAHA INFRA LIMITED, PAOTA B ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 160/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaithe Acit Vs M/S. Vardha Infra Ltd. Room No. 215, Aayakar Bhawan 6 Jalam Vilas Scheme Paota C Road, Jodhpur Paota B Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccv 7972 K

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

purchases, closing stock details, led to the legitimate Inference that the books/supporting evidences/bills vouchers had not been properly particularly when there was a steep fall in net profit rate, in the year under consideration there was loss of 6.97% of receipts whereas in the immediately preceding year the assessce had declared net profit at 7.23% of receipts 5.5 In view

ITO, WARD-2, HANUMANGARH vs. SMT. LALITA SARAF , HANUMANGARH TOWN

In the result, the appeals of the Department are dismissed and the Cross objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 551/JODH/2018[ 2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur06 May 2019

Bench: Shri N.K. Sainithe Income Tax Officer, Vs Smt. Lalita Saraf, Ward-2, Hanumangarh C/O Mangi Lal Saraf, In Front Of Mandi Studio, Hanumangarh Town

Section 12A

addition of Rs. 2.5 lacs. 12. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 26.7.2010 declaring an income of Rs. 2,60,150/- . thereafter the Assessing Officer received information from the DGIT (Investigation) Mumbai that the assessee made purchases from some parties which were found to be bogus

RAWAT PRABHU PRAKASH SINGH CHUNDAWAT HUF,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 689/JODH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)

additional income during the course of the assessment proceedings and before completion of assessment, merely to cover any unverifiable expenses and to avoid prolonged litigation. The Ld. AR emphasized that there was no finding of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the Assessing Officer, nor was there any reference to any specific bogus or fictitious expenditure

RAWAT PRABHU PRAKASH SINGH CHUNDAWAT HUF,UDAIPUR vs. DCITL CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 687/JODH/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)

additional income during the course of the assessment proceedings and before completion of assessment, merely to cover any unverifiable expenses and to avoid prolonged litigation. The Ld. AR emphasized that there was no finding of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the Assessing Officer, nor was there any reference to any specific bogus or fictitious expenditure

RAWAT PRABHU PRAKASH SINGH CHUNDAWAT HUF,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 690/JODH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)

additional income during the course of the assessment proceedings and before completion of assessment, merely to cover any unverifiable expenses and to avoid prolonged litigation. The Ld. AR emphasized that there was no finding of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the Assessing Officer, nor was there any reference to any specific bogus or fictitious expenditure

RAWAT PRABHU PRAKASH SINGH CHUNDAWAT HUF,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, all the above appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 691/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kothari, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT(Sr. D.R)
Section 133ASection 148Section 271(1)(c)

additional income during the course of the assessment proceedings and before completion of assessment, merely to cover any unverifiable expenses and to avoid prolonged litigation. The Ld. AR emphasized that there was no finding of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the Assessing Officer, nor was there any reference to any specific bogus or fictitious expenditure

THAKUR BUILDCON (P) LTD. ,RAJSAMAND vs. ITO, WARD-1, RAJSAMAND

Appeal stands dismissed whereas the assessee’s ground stands partly allowed

ITA 345/JODH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.345/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Thakur Buildcon (P) Ltd. Income Tax Officer-Ward-1 C/O. Rajendra Jain Advocate Rajsamand बनाम/ 106, Akshay Deep Complex, Rajasthan-313 324. Vs. 5Th B Road, Sardarpura Jodhpur, Rajasthan-342 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacct-7930-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.346/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer-Ward-1 Thakur Buildcon (P) Ltd. बनाम/ Rajsamand Thakurgarh N.H. 8 Rajasthan-313 324. Sevali, Rajsamand Vs. Rajasthan-313 324. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacct-7930-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain (Advocate) &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Yadav - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69

Income Tax Act, 1961. In the said assessment, the assessee was saddled with certain peak additions of Rs.216.77 Lacs on account of alleged bogus purchases

CHAMPA LAL MEHTA,SANCHORE vs. ITO WARD-2 JALORE, JALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 599/JODH/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Narinder Kumar, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

addition has been made by applying some higher GP rate of 12.5% on alleged bogus purchases and that to be on estimated basis, then no penalty can be levied u/s.271(1)(c). Further, in A. Y. 2009-10 it has been stated that on similar application of GP rate on bogus purchases, penalty initiated by the Id. AO was dropped

CHAMPA LAL MEHTA ,SANCHORE vs. ITO WARD-2, JALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 598/JODH/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur29 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Shri Narinder Kumar, Hon'Ble

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

addition has been made by applying some higher GP rate of 12.5% on alleged bogus purchases and that to be on estimated basis, then no penalty can be levied u/s.271(1)(c). Further, in A. Y. 2009-10 it has been stated that on similar application of GP rate on bogus purchases, penalty initiated by the Id. AO was dropped

ACIT, CIRCLE, BHILWARA, BHILWARA vs. M/S. SAMARPAN SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD. , BHILWARA

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 205/JODH/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Feb 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwala.C.I.T. Vs. M/S Samarpan Synthetics Pvt. Circle, Ltd., Bhilwara 54, Bhilwara Textiles Market, Pur Road, Bhilwara-311001, Rahasthan. Pan No. Aahcs 4365 G

Section 131Section 69

income. In response to same assessee submitted reply vide letter dated 21.12.2018 explaining that for bank loan/limit purpose, purchase made from M/s Maximum Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. has been split in the name of six parties but in fact there is no purchase from these parties and therefore no addition should be made. The AO, however, did not accept the explanation

PUKHRAJ KUNDANMAL SHAH,JODHPUR vs. ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 763/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon'Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon'Ble

Section 115BSection 133ASection 145(3)

purchase bills were disregarded and ignored blindly and nothing contrary was brought on record. 4. That the addition was made & confirmed by lower authorities without properly considering the submissions and evidences filed before them. 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in applying the theory "Human Probability Test and Preponderance of Probability in the facts

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDAIPUR, UDAIPUR

ITA 708/JODH/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 May 2025AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

bogus purchase issue wherein the additions have been upheld in principle even when the books of accounts have not been rejected. In this regard the following judgment is also hereby referred to wherein the addition has been upheld even where the books of accounts were not rejected. Case referred Shree Krishan Kripa Feeds v/s CIT, Karnal 101 Taxman.com

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 UDIAPUR, UDAIPUE

ITA 707/JODH/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 May 2025AY 2014-15
Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

bogus purchase issue wherein the additions have been upheld in principle even when the books of accounts have not been rejected. In this regard the following judgment is also hereby referred to wherein the addition has been upheld even where the books of accounts were not rejected. Case referred Shree Krishan Kripa Feeds v/s CIT, Karnal 101 Taxman.com

ASHIANA BUILDPROP PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIAPUR, UDAIPUR

ITA 709/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

bogus purchase issue wherein the additions have been upheld in principle even when the books of accounts have not been rejected. In this regard the following judgment is also hereby referred to wherein the addition has been upheld even where the books of accounts were not rejected. Case referred Shree Krishan Kripa Feeds v/s CIT, Karnal 101 Taxman.com

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDIPUR vs. M/S. WAGAD CONSTRUTION COMPANY, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 30/JODH/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur12 Jan 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Advocate)For Respondent: Shri Venkatesh V. (JCIT-Sr.DR)
Section 143(1)

bogus - Held, yes - Whether since Assessing Officer had drawn an adverse conclusion only on account of non-verifiability of sundry creditors but there being no dispute as regards purchases and trading results having been accepted, addition made under section 68 was not sustainable - Held, yes [Paras 15.2 & 15.3] [In favour of assessee]" In the case of Continental Carbon India

MADAN LAL AND PARTY,HANUMANGARH vs. PR. CIT, BIKANER

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 233/JODH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Dec 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.233/Jodh/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.234/Jodh/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Madan Lal & Party Pr. Cit (Hanumangarh Town) Income Tax Office बनाम/ C/O Neeraj Chawla Ca Rani Bazaar, Bikaner Vs. 55, Adarsh Nagar, Sri Ganganagar Rajasthan. Rajasthan-335 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacam-3229-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Badhok- Ld. CIT- DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 263Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(3)

bogus capital as well as cash purchases. The Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 assessment order takes note of the fact that since entire cash purchases of Rs.13.63 Crores was being disallowed u/s 40A(3), separate addition thereof u/s 40A(2)(b) would not be required. Finally, the income

LAKHPAT TRADING AND INDUSTRYS PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 600/JODH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blelakhpat Trading & Acit, Circle-3 Industryspvt. Ltd. Jodhpur G-72/73 79/80, 1St Phase, Boranada, Jodhpur - 342001 Pan No. Aaccl 5668 C Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate & Smt. Raksha Birla, Ca (Physical) Smt. Runi Pal, Cit-Dr (Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As Nfac/ Cit(A)] Dated 26.06.2025 With Respect To Assessment Year 2017-18 Challenging Therein The Rejection Of Its Books Of Accounts U/S 145(3), Estimation Of Income & Reducing Genuine Sales.

Section 115BSection 145(3)Section 68Section 69C

addition of Rs 1,11,60,612/-in respect of alleged bogus sales. 18. It has been discussed as above that the assessee company is engaged in the business of trading and manufacturing of edible oil etc. and that the assessee had furnished complete detailed information and evidences such as the sales, books, sale bill, purchase books, purchases bills, stock

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIKANER vs. MUKESH SHAH, SRIGANGANAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 399/JODH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24

bogus. Therefore, in my considered view, the addition has been made purely on the basis of suspicion. Such action of authorities below cannot be affirmed. I, therefore, direct the AO to delete the impugned addition. Thus, ground raised by the assessee in this appeal is allowed." Nand Kumar Taneja & Anr. vs. ITO(2019) 55 CCH 0705 (DelTrib) Para