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.

75 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 153A(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,134Delhi1,037Jaipur286Chennai232Bangalore192Hyderabad111Chandigarh105Pune80Kolkata75Visakhapatnam60Cochin59Nagpur57Amritsar41Surat40Ahmedabad38Indore33Guwahati32Raipur32Allahabad29Jodhpur17Agra16Rajkot16Patna15Ranchi14Lucknow13Karnataka5Dehradun5Jabalpur3Cuttack2Calcutta1Gauhati1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 14886Section 14763Section 153A57Addition to Income50Section 13245Limitation/Time-bar28Search & Seizure28Section 25019Section 263

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

Showing 1–20 of 75 · Page 1 of 4

19
Section 143(3)18
Section 69A18
Penalty12

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

ACIT, CC-2(1), KOL, KOLKATA vs. SHALIMAR HATCHERIES LIMITED, KOLKATA

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

ITA 546/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Appellant Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 3Rd Floor, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 -Vs.- Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,......................Respondent 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, 17Th Floor, Everest House, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] - A N D - C.O. No. 13/Kol/2023 (In I.T.A. No. 546/Kol/2023) Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Shalimar Hatcheries Ltd.,..................Cross Objector 46C, Chowringhee Road, Park Street, Kolkata-700071 [Pan: Aadcs6537J] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Shanti Pally, Kolkata-700107 Appearances By: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 35(1)(ii)

153A, the search upon the donee took place before completion of assessment order in the case of assessee. The assessment order was completed on 27.03.2015 whereas search upon the donee was conducted somewhere in the month of January. Therefore, all the information regarding the alleged claim of deduction under section 35(1)(ii) was already in the knowledge

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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. KAMALESH AGARWAL, KOLKATA

ITA 1535/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

purchases and sales are correctly recorded and the disclosure was made just to cover the papers and documents which he may not be able to explain. The assessee bifurcated his own disclosure of Rs.3.50 lakhs in respect to two parts, i.e. Rs.70,00,000 for the assessment year 2008-09 and Rs.2.80 lakhs for the assessment year

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. DILIP KUMAR MODI, KOLKATA

ITA 1485/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

purchases and sales are correctly recorded and the disclosure was made just to cover the papers and documents which he may not be able to explain. The assessee bifurcated his own disclosure of Rs.3.50 lakhs in respect to two parts, i.e. Rs.70,00,000 for the assessment year 2008-09 and Rs.2.80 lakhs for the assessment year

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), KOLKATA , KOLKATA vs. SHRI MURARILAL AGARWAL, KOLKATA

ITA 2293/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

purchases and sales are correctly recorded and the disclosure was made just to cover the papers and documents which he may not be able to explain. The assessee bifurcated his own disclosure of Rs.3.50 lakhs in respect to two parts, i.e. Rs.70,00,000 for the assessment year 2008-09 and Rs.2.80 lakhs for the assessment year

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SIDHANT GUPTA, NEW DELHI

ITA 232/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

purchases and sales are correctly recorded and the disclosure was made just to cover the papers and documents which he may not be able to explain. The assessee bifurcated his own disclosure of Rs.3.50 lakhs in respect to two parts, i.e. Rs.70,00,000 for the assessment year 2008-09 and Rs.2.80 lakhs for the assessment year

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SANJAY DHINGRA, NEW DELHI

ITA 234/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

purchases and sales are correctly recorded and the disclosure was made just to cover the papers and documents which he may not be able to explain. The assessee bifurcated his own disclosure of Rs.3.50 lakhs in respect to two parts, i.e. Rs.70,00,000 for the assessment year 2008-09 and Rs.2.80 lakhs for the assessment year

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

ITA 1560/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2019-20
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148

bogus and such\naction is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the\ncircumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and\nit may be held accordingly\n16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment\nmade to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were\nthrough banking channel

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC - 3(3),, KOLKATA

ITA 1195/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2017-2018
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148

bogus and such\naction is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the\ncircumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and\nit may be held accordingly\n16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment\nmade to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were\nthrough banking channel

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

ITA 1197/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2020-2021
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148

bogus and such\naction is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the\ncircumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and\nit may be held accordingly.\n16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment\nmade to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were\nthrough banking channel

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

ITA 1194/KOL/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148

bogus and such\naction is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the\ncircumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and\nit may be held accordingly.\n16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment\nmade to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were\nthrough banking channel

D.C.I.T., CC - 3(1),, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

ITA 1541/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148

bogus and such\naction is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the\ncircumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and\nit may be held accordingly.\n16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment\nmade to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were\nthrough banking channel

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), , KOLKATA

ITA 931/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2019-2020
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148

bogus and such\naction is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the\ncircumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and\nit may be held accordingly.\n16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment\nmade to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were\nthrough banking channel

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1),, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

ITA 1591/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2021-22
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148

bogus and such\naction is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the\ncircumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and\nit may be held accordingly.\n16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment\nmade to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were\nthrough banking channel

M/S. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), KOLKATA

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and\nappeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1196/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148

bogus and such\naction is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the\ncircumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and\nit may be held accordingly.\n16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment\nmade to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were\nthrough banking channel

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

ITA 1561/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2020-21
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148

bogus and such\naction is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the\ncircumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and\nit may be held accordingly.\n16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment\nmade to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were\nthrough banking channel