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.

355 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 142(3)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,346Delhi957Kolkata355Jaipur310Chennai171Chandigarh157Ahmedabad155Surat148Bangalore129Indore114Pune106Karnataka102Rajkot84Hyderabad84Raipur66Visakhapatnam60Cochin58Calcutta45Amritsar43Nagpur41Lucknow38Guwahati38Agra28Allahabad26Patna23Jodhpur21Ranchi16Cuttack14Varanasi7Jabalpur6SC4Telangana4Dehradun3Orissa2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Bombay1

Key Topics

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S STANDARD LEATHER PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2620/KOL/2013[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2010-11

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

bogus warranting addition in the income of the assessee. It is again submitted that there is no dispute that the goods have been purchased and the genuinity of the purchase have not been disputed and it was because that the provisions of section 40A(3) have been applied. Moreover, the assessee maintained day-to-day stock register wherein

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

In the result the appeals are allowed

Showing 1–20 of 355 · Page 1 of 18

...
Disallowance23
Reopening of Assessment21
Unexplained Cash Credit19
ITA 509/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: Disposed
ITAT Kolkata
13 Dec 2017
AY 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

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

3% on account of bogus purchases which is quite reasonable, hence order passed by Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. We note that just to gather more material to prove the claim of the assessee wrong, is not the object of section 263 of the Act, the ld PCIT has to prove the patent

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

3% on account of bogus purchases which is quite reasonable, hence order passed by Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. We note that just to gather more material to prove the claim of the assessee wrong, is not the object of section 263 of the Act, the ld PCIT has to prove the patent

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

3% on account of bogus purchases which is quite reasonable, hence order passed by Assessing Officer is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. We note that just to gather more material to prove the claim of the assessee wrong, is not the object of section 263 of the Act, the ld PCIT has to prove the patent

SUNITA CHANANI ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-36(2), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/KOL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69C

bogus claim of exempt Income in the form of Long Term Capital Gains on sale of listed equity shares. The addition is not called for and hence the same be deleted. 2. For that in the facts and circumstance the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals erred in not allowing the exemption

SUNITA CHANANI ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-36(2), KOLKATA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 255/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Altaf Hussain, Addl. CIT
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69C

bogus claim of exempt Income in the form of Long Term Capital Gains on sale of listed equity shares. The addition is not called for and hence the same be deleted. 2. For that in the facts and circumstance the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals erred in not allowing the exemption

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

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

SHRI KISHORE KUMAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-3(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2530/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Amit Agarwal, Assistant Commissioner Of 49A, Tollygunge Circular Road, Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- New Alipore, Kolkata-700053. 3(4), Kolkata. (Pan: Agapa0320R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah & Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barnab, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)

purchaser's identity is never disclosed to the seller. 5. For that the Ld. CIT(A) perverse and on the facts and circumstances of the case the addition of Rs.87,36,730/- was not in accordance with law, Tax effect is stated in Ground No.2. 6. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.4

SHRI AMIT AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CC-3(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2592/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Amit Agarwal, Assistant Commissioner Of 49A, Tollygunge Circular Road, Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- New Alipore, Kolkata-700053. 3(4), Kolkata. (Pan: Agapa0320R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah & Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barnab, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)

purchaser's identity is never disclosed to the seller. 5. For that the Ld. CIT(A) perverse and on the facts and circumstances of the case the addition of Rs.87,36,730/- was not in accordance with law, Tax effect is stated in Ground No.2. 6. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.4

SHRI SHREY AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-3(40, KOLKATA

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2565/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Amit Agarwal, Assistant Commissioner Of 49A, Tollygunge Circular Road, Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- New Alipore, Kolkata-700053. 3(4), Kolkata. (Pan: Agapa0320R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah & Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barnab, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)

purchaser's identity is never disclosed to the seller. 5. For that the Ld. CIT(A) perverse and on the facts and circumstances of the case the addition of Rs.87,36,730/- was not in accordance with law, Tax effect is stated in Ground No.2. 6. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.4

SHRI DINESH AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2624/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Amit Agarwal, Assistant Commissioner Of 49A, Tollygunge Circular Road, Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- New Alipore, Kolkata-700053. 3(4), Kolkata. (Pan: Agapa0320R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah & Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barnab, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)

purchaser's identity is never disclosed to the seller. 5. For that the Ld. CIT(A) perverse and on the facts and circumstances of the case the addition of Rs.87,36,730/- was not in accordance with law, Tax effect is stated in Ground No.2. 6. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.4

SHRI VIJAY AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2623/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Amit Agarwal, Assistant Commissioner Of 49A, Tollygunge Circular Road, Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- New Alipore, Kolkata-700053. 3(4), Kolkata. (Pan: Agapa0320R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah & Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barnab, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)

purchaser's identity is never disclosed to the seller. 5. For that the Ld. CIT(A) perverse and on the facts and circumstances of the case the addition of Rs.87,36,730/- was not in accordance with law, Tax effect is stated in Ground No.2. 6. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.4

SHRI MAHESH AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2539/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Amit Agarwal, Assistant Commissioner Of 49A, Tollygunge Circular Road, Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- New Alipore, Kolkata-700053. 3(4), Kolkata. (Pan: Agapa0320R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah & Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barnab, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)

purchaser's identity is never disclosed to the seller. 5. For that the Ld. CIT(A) perverse and on the facts and circumstances of the case the addition of Rs.87,36,730/- was not in accordance with law, Tax effect is stated in Ground No.2. 6. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.4

SHRI KAMAL AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T.,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), KOLKATA

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2522/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Amit Agarwal, Assistant Commissioner Of 49A, Tollygunge Circular Road, Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- New Alipore, Kolkata-700053. 3(4), Kolkata. (Pan: Agapa0320R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah & Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barnab, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)

purchaser's identity is never disclosed to the seller. 5. For that the Ld. CIT(A) perverse and on the facts and circumstances of the case the addition of Rs.87,36,730/- was not in accordance with law, Tax effect is stated in Ground No.2. 6. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.4

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

SRI MALAY MONDAL,BURDWAN vs. I.T.O WD - 2(2),ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 903/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 40A(3)

142(1) of the Act were issued. In response to which, the ld.AR of the assessee appeared and filed the copies of documents and produced books of account for verification. 5. The AO conducted an enquiry u/s. 133(6) of the Act, where he found that the assessee has purchased country spirit from M/s. Asansol Bottling & Packaging

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

3. Ground no. 5 in all the appeals are against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the addition of Rs.27,28,000/- being bogus purchase of diamonds from M/s. Vitrag Jewels (hereinafter referred to as ‘M/s. Vitrag’) for AY 2008-09. Likewise, in AY 2010-11, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of Rs.32