BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

7 results for “bogus purchases”+ Demonetizationclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi160Mumbai49Jaipur49Chennai46Ahmedabad39Agra19Surat18Lucknow18Chandigarh18Jodhpur15Bangalore11Guwahati7Indore7Kolkata7Pune6Rajkot6Amritsar4Raipur4Jabalpur2Hyderabad2Visakhapatnam1Dehradun1Patna1Ranchi1Varanasi1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 687Cash Deposit7Demonetization7Addition to Income7Section 2505Section 143(2)4Section 44A2Section 115J2Section 2632Disallowance

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA vs. JKJ JEWELLERS (HCM), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 420/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Jkj Jewellers (Hcm) Income Tax Officer 1St Floor, 18, Hanspukur First 3, Govt. Place (West), Ground Lane, Burrabazar, Floor, Kolkata-700069, West Vs. Kolkata-700007, Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aakfj7956Q Co No. 26/Kol/2024 (Arising In Ita No. 420/Kol/2024 For A.Y. 2017-18) Jkj Jewellers (Hcm) Income Tax Officer 1St Floor, 18, Hanspukur First 3, Govt. Place (West), Ground Lane, Burrabazar, Floor, Kolkata-700069, Vs. Kolkata-700007, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Jhajharia, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, DR
Section 143Section 68

bogus purchase etc. ITA No.420//KOL/2024 & CO. 26/KOL/2024; M/s JKJ Jewellers (HCM); A.Y. 2017-18 4. Appellant has duly submitted copy of VAT return as filed with sales tax department and the same remains genuine and hence sales so made cannot be doubtful. 5. Quantum of cash balance to remain with an assessee cannot be decided by AO, since

2
Unexplained Cash Credit2

M/S. ARTHUR TURNKEY PROJECTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, ITA No.1724/Kol/2025 filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee being ITA No

ITA 1193/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Nov 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata.……………………………………….……….……Appellant Vs. Arthur Turnkey Projects Ltd.……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent 1/1A, 4H Electronic Centre, Biplabi Anukul Chandra Street, Chandni Chawk, Kol-700072. [Pan: Aafcm4891H] Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthur Turnkey Projects Ltd.……………………………………….……….……Assessee 1/1A, 4H Electronic Centre, Biplabi Anukul Chandra Street, Chandni Chawk, Kol-700072. [Pan: Aafcm4891H] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata.…………………………………….....……...…………..Revenue Appearances By: Shri Robin Maheshwari, Aca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 12, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Captioned Appeals & The Cross-Appeal, One Filed By The Revenue & The Other By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Both Dated 24.04.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017–18 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 250Section 68

purchases, the corresponding cash sales could not be treated as bogus”. Going over the above discussion and considering the judicial precedents, we find that the addition of Rs.34,96,000/- made on account of cash deposits during demonetization

DCIT, CIRCLE1(1), KOLKATA vs. ARTHUR TURNKEY PROJECTS LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, ITA No.1724/Kol/2025 filed by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee being ITA No

ITA 1724/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata.……………………………………….……….……Appellant Vs. Arthur Turnkey Projects Ltd.……………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent 1/1A, 4H Electronic Centre, Biplabi Anukul Chandra Street, Chandni Chawk, Kol-700072. [Pan: Aafcm4891H] Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arthur Turnkey Projects Ltd.……………………………………….……….……Assessee 1/1A, 4H Electronic Centre, Biplabi Anukul Chandra Street, Chandni Chawk, Kol-700072. [Pan: Aafcm4891H] Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata.…………………………………….....……...…………..Revenue Appearances By: Shri Robin Maheshwari, Aca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 16, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 12, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: The Captioned Appeals & The Cross-Appeal, One Filed By The Revenue & The Other By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Both Dated 24.04.2025 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017–18 Respectively. Since, The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Common & Relate To

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 250Section 68

purchases, the corresponding cash sales could not be treated as bogus”. Going over the above discussion and considering the judicial precedents, we find that the addition of Rs.34,96,000/- made on account of cash deposits during demonetization

ARPITA PAL,BURDWAN vs. ITO, ASANSOL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 950/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 44ASection 45ASection 69A

demonetization period, case selected for scrutiny through CASS followed by validly issuing and service of notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act. The ld. Assessing Officer observed that the assessee deposited cash of Rs.42,50,500/- and Rs.2,00,000/- in two bank accounts maintained with HDFC Bank. Notice u/s 133(6) of the Act was issued

RAM KUMAR GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 43, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 309/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.309/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ram Kumar Gupta…...…………….....……………………....………....Appellant 67/46, Posta Chowrasta, Kolkata -700007. [Pan: Adrpg8556B] Vs. Acit, Circle-43, Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rajiva Kumar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit- Dr On Behalf Of P. P. Barman, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 09, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.1,10,46,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Cash Deposits In The Bank Account Of The Assessee During Demonetization Period. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Derives Income From Retail Trading In The Name Of M/S R. Kumar & Co. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 28.07.2017 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.8,19,420/-. The Return Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S

Section 250Section 44ASection 68

demonetized currency notes and a sum of Rs. 61,01,000/- was deposited in other currency notes. The AO wrongly noted that the assesses deposited Rs. 1,10,46,000/- in cash in his bank accounts during the demonization period. 1.3 It is further submitted that the cash of Rs.1,04,06,000/- was deposited out of the sales

BALAJEE METALLIC,PCIT vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 227/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 227/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Balajee Metallic,……………………………..……Appellant 5A, Hospital Street, Chandni Chawk, Kolkata-700072 [Pan:Aamfb7518E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Kolkata-1, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 10, 2024 O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

demonetization i.e. 08/11/2016 to 30/12/2016 in SBNs are reflected in the cash book of the assessee on 07/11/2016. The assessee during relevant financial year deposited cash of Rs.6.45 Crores in its banking accounts. The assessee deposited cash of Rs. 4.30 Crores upto the date of 08/11/2016. While on the other hand in respect of custom duty mismatch, the assessee

ANIL KUMAR PAIK ,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-8(1), KOL, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 492/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 492/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anil Kumar Paik Acit, Circle-8(1), Kolkata C/O S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Vs 2, Garstin Place, 2Nd Floor Suite No. 203 Off Hare Street Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aflpp6567R] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/02/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 15/03/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Commissioner, Of Income Tax (Appeals)- N.F.A.C. Acted Unlawfully In Impliedly Sustaining; The Purported Addition Of Rs. 1,67.44,907/- Made The Ld. Assistant Commissioner, Of Income Tax, Circle 8(1) Kolkata By Invoking The Mischief U/S. 43Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Satisfying The Parameters Thereof & The Adverse Conclusion Reached On That Behalf In Violation Of The Statutory Prescription Is Completely Unfounded, Unjustified & Untenable In Law. 2. For That The Specious Approach Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-N.F.A,C. Of Misreading Evidence, Considering Improper Facts

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 145Section 250Section 43C

Demonetization Period on extraneous considerations not germane to the issue and totally ignoring the cogent explanation adduced on record and the impugned finding on that issue is completely unfounded, unjustified, and untenable in law. 6. FOR THAT on a true and proper interpretation of the scope of the provisions of s. 145(3) of the Income