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.

356 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 142clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,351Delhi957Kolkata356Jaipur310Chennai171Chandigarh157Ahmedabad155Surat148Bangalore129Indore114Pune106Karnataka102Hyderabad86Rajkot84Raipur66Visakhapatnam60Cochin58Calcutta45Amritsar43Nagpur41Lucknow38Guwahati38Agra28Allahabad26Patna23Jodhpur21Ranchi16Cuttack14Varanasi7Jabalpur6SC4Telangana4Dehradun3Orissa2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Bombay1

Key Topics

Section 148162Section 147111Addition to Income79Section 143(3)58Section 6857Section 148A39Section 143(2)38Section 25027Section 10(38)27

OM FORGING & ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals are allowed

ITA 509/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Md.Usman, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 263

142(1) of the Act calling upon the assessee to furnish several details. The assessee had furnished confirmation from the dealers who were alleged to have issued bogus purchase bills. Their addresses were also furnished. Most importantly, the assessee gave details of the payments made to the parties in A.Y.2010-11 and 2011-12 which are given as Annexure

ACIT, CIRCLE - 34, KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. BHAWARLAL ALOKE KUMAR , KOLKATA

Showing 1–20 of 356 · Page 1 of 18

...
Disallowance23
Reopening of Assessment21
Unexplained Cash Credit19

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 779/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 Acit, Cicle-34, V/S. Bhawarlal Aloke Kumar Aayakar Poorva, 7Th P-12, New Howrah Bridge Approach Road, 4Th Floor, Floor, 110, Shantipally, Kolkatka-107 Kolkta-700001 [Pan No.Aadfb 0620 N] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant None ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 04-02-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 03-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee‘S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Kolkata’S Order Dated 23.01.2018 Passed In Case No.224/Cit(A)-10/C-34/14-15/16-17/Kol, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Case Called Twice. None Appears At The Assessee’S Behest Despite The Registry Having Sent An Rpad Notice. It Is Accordingly Proceeded Ex Parte. 2. Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised In The Instant Appeal Seeks To Challenge Correctness Of Cit(A)’S Action Partly Upholding Assessing Officer’S Findings Disallowing Assessee’S Purchase(S) Of ₹3,22,28,000/- Only To The Extent Of 15% Vide Impugned Following Detailed Discussion:- “06. Findings &. Decision:

Section 143(3)

Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Method of accounting - Estimation of Profits [Bogus purchases] - Assessment year 2006-07 - Assessee was engaged in ,business of trading in steel on wholesale basis - Assessing Officer having found that some of alleged suppliers of steel to assessee had not supplied steel to assessee but had only provided sale bills, held that purchases

SATYA PRAKASH SHARMA ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 12, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2576/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.4,43 cr. We note that the AO had issued “reasons to reopen” vide letter dated 10.08.2015 (refer pages 42-43 paper book) and pursuant to which the assessee filed his reply vide letter dated 31.08.2015 (refer pages 44-48 paper book) and AO thereafter issued notice u/s. 142(1) dated 15.10.2015 pursuant

SATYA PRAKASH SHARMA ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 12, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2575/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.4,43 cr. We note that the AO had issued “reasons to reopen” vide letter dated 10.08.2015 (refer pages 42-43 paper book) and pursuant to which the assessee filed his reply vide letter dated 31.08.2015 (refer pages 44-48 paper book) and AO thereafter issued notice u/s. 142(1) dated 15.10.2015 pursuant

SATYA PRAKASH SHARMA ,KOLKATA vs. PR.CIT, KOLKATA - 12, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2574/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am]

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.4,43 cr. We note that the AO had issued “reasons to reopen” vide letter dated 10.08.2015 (refer pages 42-43 paper book) and pursuant to which the assessee filed his reply vide letter dated 31.08.2015 (refer pages 44-48 paper book) and AO thereafter issued notice u/s. 142(1) dated 15.10.2015 pursuant

MANOJ BEGANI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 935/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

142(1) of the Act dated 03.06.2015, the case was fixed for hearing on 11.06.2015. However, no hearing could take place because of an adjournment application moved by the assessee, so he refixed the case on 18.06.2015 and since the assessee sought adjournment again, the matter was refixed for hearing on Manoj Begani

MANOJ BEGANI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 933/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

142(1) of the Act dated 03.06.2015, the case was fixed for hearing on 11.06.2015. However, no hearing could take place because of an adjournment application moved by the assessee, so he refixed the case on 18.06.2015 and since the assessee sought adjournment again, the matter was refixed for hearing on Manoj Begani

MANOJ BEGANI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 934/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

142(1) of the Act dated 03.06.2015, the case was fixed for hearing on 11.06.2015. However, no hearing could take place because of an adjournment application moved by the assessee, so he refixed the case on 18.06.2015 and since the assessee sought adjournment again, the matter was refixed for hearing on Manoj Begani

MANOJ BEGANI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 936/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

142(1) of the Act dated 03.06.2015, the case was fixed for hearing on 11.06.2015. However, no hearing could take place because of an adjournment application moved by the assessee, so he refixed the case on 18.06.2015 and since the assessee sought adjournment again, the matter was refixed for hearing on Manoj Begani

MANOJ BEGANI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 932/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

142(1) of the Act dated 03.06.2015, the case was fixed for hearing on 11.06.2015. However, no hearing could take place because of an adjournment application moved by the assessee, so he refixed the case on 18.06.2015 and since the assessee sought adjournment again, the matter was refixed for hearing on Manoj Begani

SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR TEKRIWAL,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 10, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, these three appeals of three assessees are allowed

ITA 1136/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1134/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Himat Singhka, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 263

142(1) of the Act. In response to these notices, the assessee provided list of purchases / creditors and the AO randomly selected few parties and issued verification letter. Ld AO sought explanation from assessee that why not GP rate for current year of 4.63% will not be applied on the said amount of bogus purchases and added to the total

SANDIP KUMAR TEKRIWAL HUF,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 10, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, these three appeals of three assessees are allowed

ITA 1135/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1134/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Himat Singhka, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 263

142(1) of the Act. In response to these notices, the assessee provided list of purchases / creditors and the AO randomly selected few parties and issued verification letter. Ld AO sought explanation from assessee that why not GP rate for current year of 4.63% will not be applied on the said amount of bogus purchases and added to the total

BINOD KUMAR TEKRIWAL HUF,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 10, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, these three appeals of three assessees are allowed

ITA 1134/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1134/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Himat Singhka, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 263

142(1) of the Act. In response to these notices, the assessee provided list of purchases / creditors and the AO randomly selected few parties and issued verification letter. Ld AO sought explanation from assessee that why not GP rate for current year of 4.63% will not be applied on the said amount of bogus purchases and added to the total

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTHAN ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1059/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.952/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT
Section 131Section 143(3)

bogus since it is common knowledge that sales of goods cannot taken place without purchase of goods in the first place. So, therefore, in the light of the evidences adduced to prove the genuineness of the transactions and when the fact remains that the sales has been accepted by the Assessing Officer in totality, the action of the Assessing Officer

M/S. HINDISTHAN ENGINEEING & INDISTRIES LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -5 KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 952/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.952/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT
Section 131Section 143(3)

bogus since it is common knowledge that sales of goods cannot taken place without purchase of goods in the first place. So, therefore, in the light of the evidences adduced to prove the genuineness of the transactions and when the fact remains that the sales has been accepted by the Assessing Officer in totality, the action of the Assessing Officer

GANAPATI DEVELOPERS ,HOWRAH vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-47, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/KOL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Madhumita Roy)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 151Section 250Section 68

purchases are only to the tune of ₹5,98,336/- in the reasons given to the assessee the amount was reflected as ₹31,20,073/- and ₹78,315/- and in the reasons given in the assessment order the figure was given as ₹19,28,589/-. The facts are all mixed up and errors have crept into the reasons recorded

SHRI ADITYA CHINDALIA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 34(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2242/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 2241/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Laxmi Devi Chindalia Vs. I.T.O, Ward 34(2) Pan: Acopc8728P Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2242/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Aditya Chindalia Vs. I.T.O, Ward 34(2) Pan: Afkpc6363F Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Surana, FCA, ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, ld. Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 69

bogus purchases ­ Whether on facts, impugned addition made by Assessing Officer was to be confirmed· Held, yes [para 8] [In favour of revenue. g. It must also be stated here that in Commissioner of Income Tax vs NR Portfolio Pvt Ltd on 22 November, 2013, the Hon'ble Delhi High court has held ..... "The Assessing Officer is both an investigator

SMT. LAXMI DEVI CHINDALIA ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 35(3), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2241/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 2241/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Laxmi Devi Chindalia Vs. I.T.O, Ward 34(2) Pan: Acopc8728P Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 2242/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Aditya Chindalia Vs. I.T.O, Ward 34(2) Pan: Afkpc6363F Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S.S. Surana, FCA, ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, ld. Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 69

bogus purchases ­ Whether on facts, impugned addition made by Assessing Officer was to be confirmed· Held, yes [para 8] [In favour of revenue. g. It must also be stated here that in Commissioner of Income Tax vs NR Portfolio Pvt Ltd on 22 November, 2013, the Hon'ble Delhi High court has held ..... "The Assessing Officer is both an investigator

DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SPML INFRA LIMITED , KOLKATA

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

ITA 1211/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1228/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Lata Goyal, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 263

bogus expenditures. The ld. Counsel submitted before us that assessment order framed by Assessing Officer is not as per the scheme of section 142 of the Act, as explained above, therefore order passed by Assessing Officer should be quashed. The ld Counsel further submitted before us that it is also the matter of fact that both the projects undertaken

M/S. SPML INFRA LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 8(2), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

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

ITA 1228/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1228/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Lata Goyal, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 263

bogus expenditures. The ld. Counsel submitted before us that assessment order framed by Assessing Officer is not as per the scheme of section 142 of the Act, as explained above, therefore order passed by Assessing Officer should be quashed. The ld Counsel further submitted before us that it is also the matter of fact that both the projects undertaken