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.

72 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 153Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,105Delhi1,027Jaipur277Chennai223Bangalore183Chandigarh105Hyderabad103Pune80Kolkata72Cochin59Nagpur57Visakhapatnam48Amritsar41Surat40Ahmedabad38Indore33Guwahati32Raipur32Allahabad29Jodhpur18Agra16Rajkot15Patna15Lucknow12Ranchi12Dehradun5Karnataka5Jabalpur3Cuttack2Gauhati1Telangana1Calcutta1

Key Topics

Section 14883Section 14767Section 153A56Addition to Income48Section 13242Search & Seizure28Limitation/Time-bar27Section 25019Section 26319Section 143(3)

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 180/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

purchase order received by the assessee regarding the alleged sale. Therefore, in the absence of adequate evidence it cannot be concluded that this sale was actually made during the year and it was not an accommodation entry. 3.3 As per section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained

Showing 1–20 of 72 · Page 1 of 4

18
Section 69A15
Penalty12

NEZONE TUBES LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 179/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 250Section 251(1)(a)Section 68

purchase order received by the assessee regarding the alleged sale. Therefore, in the absence of adequate evidence it cannot be concluded that this sale was actually made during the year and it was not an accommodation entry. 3.3 As per section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961 where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained

DCIT, CC-2(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S BALAJI AGRO PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 842/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Central Circle-2(4), M/S Balaji Agro Pvt. Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, A5-6 Sarkarpool Maheshtala, 4Th Floor, 110 Shantipally, E.M. New Budge Budge Trunk Rd. Vs. Bypass, Kolkata-700107 Gopalpur 24 Paraganas South West Bengal Kolkata-700143, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcb9078M Assessee By : Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Raja Sengupta, Dr Date Of Hearing: 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Raja Sengupta, DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 43ASection 68Section 69C

153A of the Act was issued on 09.10.2021, which was complied with by the assessee by filing the return of income declaring the same ITA No.842 KOL 2025 Balaji Agro Pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 2019-20 income as was declared in the return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act. The ld. AO issued questionnaire along with notice

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MAGNETIC NIRYAT PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 347/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Dec 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 347/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,......Appellant Central Circle-2(2), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 4Th Floor, 110, Shantipally, E.M. Bypass, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- M/S. Magnetic Niryat Pvt. Limited,............Respondent 9, Vivekanand Road, Kolkata-700007 [Pan:Aagcm4047E] Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Sudipta Guha, Cit (Dr), Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 68

purchases of the assessee are to be added in an ex-parte assessment on an estimate basis or element of income quantified by the ld. CIT(Appeals) at 5% is to be restricted. 3. Brief facts of the case are that in response to the notice of hearing, no one has come present on behalf of the assessee. 4. With

SHRI JYOTI MOHAN MALL,KOLKATA vs. CIT, KOL - XV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 819/KOL/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri K.Narsimha Charyassessment Year:2003-04

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

153A read with Section 153C for the am years 2003-04 to 2006-07 and 20008-09. He has made the addition of Rs.86 crores only in the assessment year 2007-08 against which an appeal has already been filed, as stated by the ld. senior standing counsel. This also finds mention in para VI of the counter affidavit filed

JAIN INFRA PROJECTS LTD.(SINCE TAKEN OVER BANGAL CONSTRUCTION CO.),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1234/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Mar 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Amit Kumar, ACA, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT, ld.Sr.DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)

section 153A proceedings also. The assessee also filed another submission that it had shown bogus purchase of machinery of Rs. 1,08,16,000/- in Financial

PRAMOD LAKRA DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. URVASHI SAREES PVT. LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 222/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: ITAT, Kolkata were collected and prepared | | 18.01.2025 | 2nd Appeal was filed |

Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69C

bogus purchases. 2.4 Aggrieved with the assessment order the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) where he could get partial relief. Further aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) both the assessee and Revenue have filed the appeals before this Tribunal. 3. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined

URVASHI SAREES PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1946/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: ITAT, Kolkata were collected and prepared | | 18.01.2025 | 2nd Appeal was filed |

Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69C

bogus purchases. 2.4 Aggrieved with the assessment order the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) where he could get partial relief. Further aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) both the assessee and Revenue have filed the appeals before this Tribunal. 3. Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SAMRIDDHI METALS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 898/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 268A

purchase of shares is bogus. 5.3(c) In the assessment order, AO has alleged that Nilachal Ispat Pvt. Ltd. was generating cash by selling some of its low quality products in cash. AO has further alleged that proof of cash generation for the period 01-01-2016 to 30-09-2016 was found in the seized documents. However, appellant

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMANGAL DEALMARK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 887/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 268A

purchase of shares is bogus. 5.3(c) In the assessment order, AO has alleged that Nilachal Ispat Pvt. Ltd. was generating cash by selling some of its low quality products in cash. AO has further alleged that proof of cash generation for the period 01-01-2016 to 30-09-2016 was found in the seized documents. However, appellant

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SAMRIDDHI METALS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 896/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 268A

purchase of shares is bogus. 5.3(c) In the assessment order, AO has alleged that Nilachal Ispat Pvt. Ltd. was generating cash by selling some of its low quality products in cash. AO has further alleged that proof of cash generation for the period 01-01-2016 to 30-09-2016 was found in the seized documents. However, appellant

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. DISHA REALCON PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1279/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 268A

purchase of shares is bogus. 5.3(c) In the assessment order, AO has alleged that Nilachal Ispat Pvt. Ltd. was generating cash by selling some of its low quality products in cash. AO has further alleged that proof of cash generation for the period 01-01-2016 to 30-09-2016 was found in the seized documents. However, appellant

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SAMRIDDHI METALS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1281/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 268A

purchase of shares is bogus. 5.3(c) In the assessment order, AO has alleged that Nilachal Ispat Pvt. Ltd. was generating cash by selling some of its low quality products in cash. AO has further alleged that proof of cash generation for the period 01-01-2016 to 30-09-2016 was found in the seized documents. However, appellant

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SAMRIDDHI METALS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 897/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 268A

purchase of shares is bogus. 5.3(c) In the assessment order, AO has alleged that Nilachal Ispat Pvt. Ltd. was generating cash by selling some of its low quality products in cash. AO has further alleged that proof of cash generation for the period 01-01-2016 to 30-09-2016 was found in the seized documents. However, appellant

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMANGAL DEALMARK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 890/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 268A

purchase of shares is bogus. 5.3(c) In the assessment order, AO has alleged that Nilachal Ispat Pvt. Ltd. was generating cash by selling some of its low quality products in cash. AO has further alleged that proof of cash generation for the period 01-01-2016 to 30-09-2016 was found in the seized documents. However, appellant

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMANGAL DEALMARK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 891/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 268A

purchase of shares is bogus. 5.3(c) In the assessment order, AO has alleged that Nilachal Ispat Pvt. Ltd. was generating cash by selling some of its low quality products in cash. AO has further alleged that proof of cash generation for the period 01-01-2016 to 30-09-2016 was found in the seized documents. However, appellant

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA vs. PRAFUL ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 894/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 268A

purchase of shares is bogus. 5.3(c) In the assessment order, AO has alleged that Nilachal Ispat Pvt. Ltd. was generating cash by selling some of its low quality products in cash. AO has further alleged that proof of cash generation for the period 01-01-2016 to 30-09-2016 was found in the seized documents. However, appellant

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMANGAL DEALMARK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1282/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 268A

purchase of shares is bogus. 5.3(c) In the assessment order, AO has alleged that Nilachal Ispat Pvt. Ltd. was generating cash by selling some of its low quality products in cash. AO has further alleged that proof of cash generation for the period 01-01-2016 to 30-09-2016 was found in the seized documents. However, appellant

DCIT, CC-1(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SUMANGAL DEALMARK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 886/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 268A

purchase of shares is bogus. 5.3(c) In the assessment order, AO has alleged that Nilachal Ispat Pvt. Ltd. was generating cash by selling some of its low quality products in cash. AO has further alleged that proof of cash generation for the period 01-01-2016 to 30-09-2016 was found in the seized documents. However, appellant

DCIT,CC-1(3),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SAMRIDDHI METALS PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 899/KOL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Tulsiyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri A. Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 268A

purchase of shares is bogus. 5.3(c) In the assessment order, AO has alleged that Nilachal Ispat Pvt. Ltd. was generating cash by selling some of its low quality products in cash. AO has further alleged that proof of cash generation for the period 01-01-2016 to 30-09-2016 was found in the seized documents. However, appellant