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.

51 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 164clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi240Mumbai203Karnataka101Jaipur86Kolkata51Chandigarh37Chennai25Raipur21Ahmedabad21Pune16Surat15Hyderabad14Cuttack14Bangalore13Lucknow9Nagpur8Indore7Jodhpur5Agra2Orissa2Cochin1Rajkot1Ranchi1Amritsar1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 148103Section 14780Section 143(3)51Addition to Income40Section 6830Capital Gains18Section 10(38)17Long Term Capital Gains17Unexplained Cash Credit

BARDHAMAN DHARMARAJ PAPER MILL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 160/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.160/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Bardhaman Dharmaraj Paper Mill Pvt. Ltd.........................................……Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069. [Pan: Aaecb0141J] Vs. Pcit (Central), Asansol......….…..…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate & Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Md. Ghayasuddin, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 06, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 31.03.2021 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Pcit’) Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Brief Facts Are That The Assessment In This Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Act To Verify The Transactions Of The Assessee With The Party M/S Siddhi Enterprises Due To Discrepancy Found In The Accounts. 3. The Assessing Officer Noted That The Assessee Had Failed To Prove The Genuineness Of The Purchases Made From M/S Siddhi Enterprises. However, He Further Noted That The Assessee Not Only Had Shown Such Purchases In The Books Of Account But Also Had Recorded Corresponding Sales Thereto. Therefore, The Assessing Officer Held That Since The

Section 147Section 263

164 ITD 136) and further decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Simit P Sheth [(2013) 256 ITR 451] assessed the gross profit @7.85% on the sales and calculated the same at Rs.1,05,52,821/-. Since the assessee had shown gross profit at Rs.7,74,677/-, therefore, the Assessing Officer added

Showing 1–20 of 51 · Page 1 of 3

14
Section 13212
Section 132(1)11
Reopening of Assessment11

VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. ADDL C.I.T RG - 10,KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of Revenue stands dismissed and that of assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1326/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)

164, Bangur Avenue, Road, Kolkta-61 Block-B, 3rd Floor, Kolkata-55 6 Baba 85, N.S Road, Room 356/2, Upper 10,07,025 5,01,010 15,08,035 No 313, 3rd Floor, Sarees Chitpur Road, Kolkata-1 Kolkata-7 The AO during assessment proceedings directed the assessee to produce the above persons for examination along with documents in support

I.T.O WD - 10(4),KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S VEDA COMMERCIAL PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of Revenue stands dismissed and that of assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 2101/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby.T Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 143(3)

164, Bangur Avenue, Road, Kolkta-61 Block-B, 3rd Floor, Kolkata-55 6 Baba 85, N.S Road, Room 356/2, Upper 10,07,025 5,01,010 15,08,035 No 313, 3rd Floor, Sarees Chitpur Road, Kolkata-1 Kolkata-7 The AO during assessment proceedings directed the assessee to produce the above persons for examination along with documents in support

SMT. SUSHILA DEVI KAJARIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 36, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

ITA 1255/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 143(3)Section 68

Section 68 suggests that there has to be ere it of amounts in the books maintained by an assessees; such credit has to be of a sum during the previous year; and the assessees offer no explanation about that nature and source of such credit found in the books; or the explanation offer by assessees offers no explanation" means where

NAVIN KUMAR KAJARIA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 35, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

ITA 1254/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 143(3)Section 68

Section 68 suggests that there has to be ere it of amounts in the books maintained by an assessees; such credit has to be of a sum during the previous year; and the assessees offer no explanation about that nature and source of such credit found in the books; or the explanation offer by assessees offers no explanation" means where

BHAGIRATHI ASSOCIATES,HOOGHLY vs. I.T.O WD - 1(2),HOOGHLY., HOOGHLY

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 562/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2006-07

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

164/- © Mahesh Stores Rs. 16,628/- Rs.4,48,470/- (ii) For that on the a facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in taking a wrong figure of Rs.4,71,678/- while confirming the addition on account of alleged bogus purchases made from M/s Bharat Marble & Mineral Works. 5. For that

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
For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148

bogus and such action is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and it may be held accordingly. 16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment made to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were through 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
For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148

bogus and such action is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and it may be held accordingly. 16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment made to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were through banking channel

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

ITA 1515/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148

bogus and such action is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and it may be held accordingly. 16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment made to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were through 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
For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148

bogus and such action is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and it may be held accordingly. 16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment made to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were through 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 action is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and it may be held accordingly 16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment made to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were through banking channel

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3.1, KOLKATA vs. SHAKAMBHARI ISPAT & POWER LIMITED, KOLKATA

ITA 1436/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148

bogus and such action is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and it may be held accordingly. 16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment made to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were through 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 action is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and it may be held accordingly. 16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment made to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were through banking channel

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

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

bogus and such action is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and it may be held accordingly. 16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment made to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were through 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 action is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and it may be held accordingly. 16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment made to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were through banking channel

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

ITA 1198/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2026AY 2021-2022
For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148

bogus and such action is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and it may be held accordingly. 16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment made to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were through banking channel

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
For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 147Section 148

bogus and such action is bad in law and in view of the facts and in the circumstances the addition so made is liable to be deleted and it may be held accordingly 16. Without prejudice to Grounds No. 14 & 15 above, the payment made to the said vendor (i.e. Reeja Trading Private Ltd.) were through banking channel

HARI RAM AGARWAL ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 22(4) , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2363/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey & Shri M. Balaganeshi.T.A. No.2363/Kol/2018 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Hari Ram Agarwal Ito, Ward-22(4), Kolkata. -Vs- [Pan :Acdpa 1946 N]

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

section 143(1) of the Act accepting the purchase of shares. The ld AR also submitted that even in the impugned assessment order the purchase of shares by the assessee was not held to be bogus. The ld AR submitted that the evidences and documents furnished by the assessee were neither found to be false nor fabricated

MANISH KUMAR BAID,KOLKATA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1236/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1236/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Manish Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Ahmpb 3024 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1237/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mahendra Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Aejpb 7691 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 68Section 69C

section 143(1) of the Act accepting the purchase of shares. The ld AR also submitted that even in the impugned assessment order the purchase of shares by the assessee was not held to be bogus. The ld AR submitted that the evidences and documents furnished by the assessee were neither found to be false nor fabricated

MAHENDRA KUMAR BAID,KOLKATA vs. ACIT CIRCLE 35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1237/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1236/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Manish Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Ahmpb 3024 E] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A No. 1237/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mahendra Kumar Baid -Vs- Acit, Cir-35, Kolkata [Pan: Aejpb 7691 C] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 68Section 69C

section 143(1) of the Act accepting the purchase of shares. The ld AR also submitted that even in the impugned assessment order the purchase of shares by the assessee was not held to be bogus. The ld AR submitted that the evidences and documents furnished by the assessee were neither found to be false nor fabricated