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.

33 results for “bogus purchases”+ Disallowanceclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai6,204Delhi1,943Kolkata810Ahmedabad507Jaipur507Chennai492Surat385Pune370Bangalore305Chandigarh243Hyderabad199Indore167Raipur133Amritsar99Nagpur97Rajkot75Lucknow74Visakhapatnam68Cuttack67Cochin64Guwahati55Calcutta52Agra35Allahabad33Jodhpur33Ranchi25Dehradun14Patna13Karnataka13Panaji5Jabalpur5Telangana4SC3Orissa3Varanasi2Bombay1Gauhati1Punjab & Haryana1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)55Addition to Income32Section 14825Section 271(1)(c)23Disallowance12Section 153A9Section 1459Survey u/s 133A7Penalty7Section 133A

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: DisposedITAT Jodhpur16 Oct 2023AY 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 purchases. In its return, the assessee had filed tax audit reports u/s 44AB of the Income Tax Act 1961 that gave quantitative details of raw materials purchased and payments made by way of I.T.A. No.374/Jodh/2019 7 Assessment Year: 2011-12 crossed cheques. Thus, as the falsification of purchases was not proved against the assessee, no disallowance

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Showing 1–20 of 33 · Page 1 of 2

6
Section 2636
Depreciation6
ITA 136/JODH/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed
ITAT Jodhpur
02 Aug 2023
AY 2014-15
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234B

bogus solely on third party information, statements, particularly when the assessee has prima facie discharged the initial burden of substantiating the purchases through various legal & valid documentation. 10. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld AO grossly erred in sustaining addition of Rs 1,99,74,893/ by disallowing

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)

disallowance of bogus purchases and has accepted the sales in the books ofaccounts. On appeal, the CIT(A) has restricted

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

disallowance of bogus purchases and\nhas accepted the sales in the books ofaccounts. On appeal, the CIT(A) has\nrestricted

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

bogus. He also observed that the payments were made through banking channels by cheque and it was not the case that the assessee did not maintain the stock register or quantitative details. The Ld. CIT(A), however, sustained the addition of Rs. 2,50,000/- by observing as under;_ “In the instant case, it may be noted that purchases

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

M/S. SUNIL & COMPANY,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 502/JODH/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur03 Aug 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honour.”

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

Disallowing purchases amounting to Rs. 2,12,551/- which were bogus in view of the observation of the ld. AO. 2. Disallowance

DINESH KUMAR JAIN ,MUMBAI vs. ITO-22(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 373/JODH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 Oct 2023AY 2010-11
Section 143

bogus purchases in this case, the assessee has filed return of income declaring total income of Rs.4,85,600/- and the AO completed the assessment u/s 143 (3) determining the total income at Rs.8,95,297/-. The Assessing Officer determined profit @ 12.5% on the purchases made of Rs.32,77,579/-. After going through the details of purchase of gray cloth

ACIT, CIRCLE, BARMER vs. M/S. MAHAVEER INFRA ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. , MUMBAI.

In the result, the revenue’s appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas the assessee’s appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 186/JODH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

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.186/Jodh/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.212/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Acit Circle M/S. Mahaveer Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan E-109, Ansa Industrial Estate, Saki Vihar Mahaveer Nagar, Barmer Road, Saki Naka, Andheri (East) Vs. Rajasthan Mumbai-400 072 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcm-8521-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.222/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. C.O. No.18/Jodh/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.186/Jodh/2018) ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Mahaveer Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Acit Circle बना E-109, Ansa Industrial Estate, Saki Vihar Aaykar Bhavan म/ Road, Saki Naka, Andheri (East) Mahaveer Nagar, Barmer Vs. Mumbai-400 072 Rajasthan "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcm-8521-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain (Advocate) & MsFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Badhok- Ld. CIT- DR
Section 133(6)Section 68

purchase of raw material, repair & maintenance and transportation expenses. The same in the opinion of Ld. AO 9 M/s. Mahaveer Infra Engineering Private Limited Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 were disproportionate vis-à-vis expenses claimed in AY 2013-14. Hence, the assessee was requested to provide complete books of accounts, vouchers & bills etc. After considering assessee’s submissions

M/S. MAHAVEER INFRA ENGINEERING PVT. LTD. ,MUMBAI. vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, BARMER

In the result, the revenue’s appeal stand partly allowed for statistical purposes whereas the assessee’s appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 212/JODH/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

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.186/Jodh/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.212/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Acit Circle M/S. Mahaveer Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan E-109, Ansa Industrial Estate, Saki Vihar Mahaveer Nagar, Barmer Road, Saki Naka, Andheri (East) Vs. Rajasthan Mumbai-400 072 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcm-8521-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.222/Jodh/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. C.O. No.18/Jodh/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.186/Jodh/2018) ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Mahaveer Infra Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Acit Circle बना E-109, Ansa Industrial Estate, Saki Vihar Aaykar Bhavan म/ Road, Saki Naka, Andheri (East) Mahaveer Nagar, Barmer Vs. Mumbai-400 072 Rajasthan "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcm-8521-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Jain (Advocate) & MsFor Respondent: Shri K.C. Badhok- Ld. CIT- DR
Section 133(6)Section 68

purchase of raw material, repair & maintenance and transportation expenses. The same in the opinion of Ld. AO 9 M/s. Mahaveer Infra Engineering Private Limited Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 were disproportionate vis-à-vis expenses claimed in AY 2013-14. Hence, the assessee was requested to provide complete books of accounts, vouchers & bills etc. After considering assessee’s submissions

RACHNA GOYAL,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), JODHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 529/JODH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur25 Jun 2025AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 68

Disallowance of Bogus LTCG in penny stock under\npurview of unexplained cash, was held justified.\n35.\nKeeping in view the above facts and discussion and decisions of High Court and\nSupreme Court, it is noted that the appellant has failed to prove that the share transactions\nwere genuine. It is beyond human probability that the appellant could earn such huge

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

SMT. REKHA SINGH,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-4,, BHILWARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 194/JODH/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur20 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma(Respondent) Pan: Jdhr06554C

Section 143(3)Section 44A

purchase and sales recorded in the books are inflated or bogus. Further the Books of accounts are audited u/s 44AB of the income tax act. Without pointing out any defects in the books of accounts the learned A.O’s conclusion to possible leakage of revenue is hypothetical and not tenable. 7. In view of the above discussion, it is very

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

bogus and also hold that alleged sales made by assessee company are not genuine. In our view, the observation so made by ld AO was not only objectionable to the appellant but also against the principal of natural justice because as admittedly the third party information as provided by other officer had been blindly accepted as genuine

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)

bogus or fictitious expenditure. 3.1 The Ld. AR pointed out that the purchases were duly recorded in the books of account, supported by internal vouchers where third-party bills were not available, and the expenditure was incurred in the ordinary course of business. It was further submitted that there was no rejection of books of account, nor any independent evidence

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)

bogus or fictitious expenditure. 3.1 The Ld. AR pointed out that the purchases were duly recorded in the books of account, supported by internal vouchers where third-party bills were not available, and the expenditure was incurred in the ordinary course of business. It was further submitted that there was no rejection of books of account, nor any independent evidence

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

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

ITA 688/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2013-14
For Respondent: \nShri Amit Kothari, C.A
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

bogus or fictitious expenditure.\n3.1 The Ld. AR pointed out that the purchases were duly recorded in the books of\naccount, supported by internal vouchers where third-party bills were not available, and\nthe expenditure was incurred in the ordinary course of business. It was further submitted\nthat there was no rejection of books of account, nor any independent evidence

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)

bogus or fictitious expenditure. 3.1 The Ld. AR pointed out that the purchases were duly recorded in the books of account, supported by internal vouchers where third-party bills were not available, and the expenditure was incurred in the ordinary course of business. It was further submitted that there was no rejection of books of account, nor any independent evidence

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)

bogus or fictitious expenditure. 3.1 The Ld. AR pointed out that the purchases were duly recorded in the books of account, supported by internal vouchers where third-party bills were not available, and the expenditure was incurred in the ordinary course of business. It was further submitted that there was no rejection of books of account, nor any independent evidence

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

purchase is to sale the plots and earn profit than the profit on sale of the same is chargeable to tax under the head income from business. In this case the intention of the assessee is clear from the fact that the same is regulary shown under the head fixed assets. The various cases relied upon by the assessee also