BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

7 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 36(1)(va)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai29Delhi20Ahmedabad14Chandigarh12Guwahati11Jodhpur9Jaipur8Raipur7Kolkata7Indore3Lucknow2Agra1Chennai1Bangalore1

Key Topics

Section 40A(3)9Section 687Addition to Income7Section 143(3)6Section 36(1)(va)4Section 2503Section 143(2)3Section 1422Section 2(24)(x)2Disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. WELKIN TELECOM INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1087/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav (Vice President), Dr. Manish Borad (Accountant Member)

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 40A(3)

36(i)(va) which is effective from 1 April 2021. 6.55 It can be seen from the provisions of section 43B that the appellant is required to pay the dues before the due date of filing of return for the relevant assessment year. Relevant extract of S.43B has been reproduced here under Provided that nothing contained in this section shall

2
Unexplained Cash Credit2

M/S. GUNNY DEALERS LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, TECH-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed

ITA 1373/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1373/Kol/2023 Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/S Gunny Dealers Ltd…………………....................…...……………....Appellant C/O Subash Agarwal & Associates, Advocates Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700069. [Pan: Aabcg0019R] Vs. Ito, Tech-1, Kolkata………….……………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 27, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.11.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Haye Considered That The Order U/S 143(3) Was Passed By An Authority Who Lacks Jurisdiction Over The Appellant & As Such, The Said Order Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Disallowance Of

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(3)

36,64,676/- made by the A.O. on account of alleged bogus creditors. 4. (a) For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance of alleged bogus purchase to the extent of Rs. 84,789/- being 8% of the total purchase

SHELTER INFRA PROJECTS LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 10(2), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 737/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

purchased from various parties as a bogus expense. The AO has further disallowed a sum of Rs. 3,93,941/- u/s 36(1)(va) read with Section

BALAJEE METALLIC,PCIT vs. PCIT-1, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 227/KOL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 227/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Balajee Metallic,……………………………..……Appellant 5A, Hospital Street, Chandni Chawk, Kolkata-700072 [Pan:Aamfb7518E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Kolkata-1, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 Appearances By: N O N E, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 13, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 10, 2024 O R D E R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

section 143(3) whereby he determined the taxable income of the assessee at Rs.12,82,210/-. The ld. Assessing Officer has disallowed certain expenditure out of the alleged business expenditure. The assessment order is running into three pages and, therefore, we take note of the main discussion made by the ld. Assessing Officer on pages no. 2 & 3, which reads

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLKATA vs. BHAWANI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., HOWRAH

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1649/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 264Section 36(1)(va)Section 68

36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 4. The said order has been challenged by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the appeal of the assessee has been allowed partly as the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs. 6,75,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Act despite the fact that

BANDEL THERMAL POWER EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE STORES LTD.,HOOGHLY vs. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 23(1), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

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

ITA 717/KOL/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 40A(3)

Section 36(l)(va) and subsequent confirmation by the Appellate Authority is unjustified and bad in law. 3. That an inadvertent mistake of the assessee due to non-availability of sufficient balance in their bank account and in order to get early supply should not initiate an unnecessary punitive measures which is totally unjustified and unwanted and should be deleted

A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S. SEMALL IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 225/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 2Section 36Section 68

36 (1)(va) of the Act in respect of employees contribution to provident fund deposited beyond the due date under the relevant Act. 2 I.T.A. No. 225/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Semall Impex Private Limited 3. After hearing the rival submissions and perusing the material on record and also considering the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court