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.

16 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 40A(2)(b)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi103Mumbai73Chennai60Amritsar33Bangalore32Jaipur20Rajkot20Allahabad17Kolkata16Indore16Hyderabad14Jodhpur10Visakhapatnam9Ahmedabad9Guwahati9Raipur7Chandigarh7Surat7Lucknow6Agra5Nagpur3Pune3

Key Topics

Addition to Income13Disallowance10Section 143(3)8Section 40A(3)6Section 143(1)6Section 1476Section 2505Section 685Condonation of Delay

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)
5
Section 115J4
Section 374
Bogus Purchases4
Section 40A(3)

bogus purchases made from Smt. Anima Roy. 5. For that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the disallowance of Rs.44,459/- made by the A.O. on account of Employees' contribution to Provident Fund by wrongly invoking the provisions of sec.36(1)(va) r.w.s 2

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)

40A(2)(b) are not applicable only. 6.29 Therefore, the addition made by the learned AO for sum of RS.25,70,639/- is not correct and is deleted. 6.30 Accordingly, the ground 9 of the appellant are allowed. Ground 10 6.31 Ground 10 relates to disallowances of interest paid on delayed payments of statutory dues. The learned Assessing Officer

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1166/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 37

b). The point of time when commission agent’s right to receive the commission fructifies is irrelevant to decide the scope of Explanation 1 to Section 9(1 )(i), which is what is material in the context of the situation that we are in seisin of. The revenue's case before us hinges on the applicability of Section

ITC LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, RANGE-8, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1068/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 37

b). The point of time when commission agent’s right to receive the commission fructifies is irrelevant to decide the scope of Explanation 1 to Section 9(1 )(i), which is what is material in the context of the situation that we are in seisin of. The revenue's case before us hinges on the applicability of Section

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1223/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 37

b). The point of time when commission agent’s right to receive the commission fructifies is irrelevant to decide the scope of Explanation 1 to Section 9(1 )(i), which is what is material in the context of the situation that we are in seisin of. The revenue's case before us hinges on the applicability of Section

DCIT, CIRCLE-8(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ITC LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1222/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 37

b). The point of time when commission agent’s right to receive the commission fructifies is irrelevant to decide the scope of Explanation 1 to Section 9(1 )(i), which is what is material in the context of the situation that we are in seisin of. The revenue's case before us hinges on the applicability of Section

ACIT, CIRCLE - 11(2) , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SAFAL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2515/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Saurav Bagharia & Shri Ritesh Goel, AR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 40A(2)

Bogus Purchase related to the earlier issue of undisclosed stock, which is related in nature. The Ld. CIT(A) should have referred this issue also to the AO for verification and furnishing Remand Report. 6. That the appellant craves to add, alter/or amend any of the grounds of appeal during the course of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. DIVINE ALLOYS & POWER CO. LIMITED , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1838/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Divine Alloys & Power Co. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Block-A-139, Regent Estate, Income - Tax, Circle-3(1), Vs. 176/14/139, Rajpur Road, Kolkata. Kolkata-700092. (Pan: Aaccd 1367 Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)

40A of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulation, 2016. 3.3. In the present case, there is no update as to whether the Resolution Plan has been approved or the liquidation order has been passed. Thus, we find that the Resolution Professional has not taken any steps or actions in respect of present litigation before the Tribunal except

M/S. DIVINE ALLOYS & POWER CO. LIMITED ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1632/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13 Divine Alloys & Power Co. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Block-A-139, Regent Estate, Income - Tax, Circle-3(1), Vs. 176/14/139, Rajpur Road, Kolkata. Kolkata-700092. (Pan: Aaccd 1367 Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)

40A of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulation, 2016. 3.3. In the present case, there is no update as to whether the Resolution Plan has been approved or the liquidation order has been passed. Thus, we find that the Resolution Professional has not taken any steps or actions in respect of present litigation before the Tribunal except

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AXIS OVERSEAS LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2425/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cc 1(1), Kolkata Axis Overseas Limited Aaykar Bhawan Poorva, 21A, Shakespeare Sarani, Vs. 3Rd Floor, Kolkata-700107, Kolkata-700107, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aagca7497L Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri P.N. Barnwal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Barnwal, DR
Section 133(6)Section 68

b) Further, regarding the addition of cash purchases of Rs. 82,00,861/- u/s 40A(3), the AO has stated in para 5.2 of the Assessment Order that as per the impounded documents marked as AOL/08, it was found that the assessee has made a purchase of Raw Jute in the cash exceeding

SHREE AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 is allowed and appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 182/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate&Ms. PujaFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(2)Section 68

40A(2) of the Act. 5.1. Ld. Counsel pointed out that in the course of first appellate proceedings, assessee had submitted all the details relating to the claim of commission expenditure in the remand proceedings. Details furnished include nature of services provided giving date and customer wise sale of cars, make and chassis nos. of the cars, value of cars

SHREE AUTOMOTIVE PRIVATE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-10. , KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2012-13 is allowed and appeal for AY 2013-14 is partly allowed

ITA 183/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate&Ms. PujaFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(2)Section 68

40A(2) of the Act. 5.1. Ld. Counsel pointed out that in the course of first appellate proceedings, assessee had submitted all the details relating to the claim of commission expenditure in the remand proceedings. Details furnished include nature of services provided giving date and customer wise sale of cars, make and chassis nos. of the cars, value of cars

SHARAD KUMAR SINGH,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 37(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the is partly allowed

ITA 692/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Acit, Sharad Kumar Singh Circle-3(1), Income Tax Office 10A, Norode Behari Mullick Road, 3, Government Place, Vs. Kolkata-700006, West Bengal West Bengal-700001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Alqps3842K Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kapil Mondal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.09.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kapil Mondal, DR
Section 195Section 40Section 40A(3)

B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ACIT, Sharad Kumar Singh Circle-3(1), Income Tax Office 10A, Norode Behari Mullick road, 3, Government Place, Vs. Kolkata-700006, West Bengal West Bengal-700001 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. ALQPS3842K Assessee by : Shri Sunil Surana, AR Revenue by : Shri Kapil Mondal, DR Date of hearing

ENERGY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 343/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Rakesh Mishra

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Mahare Yogesh Prabhakar
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)Section 40A(3)

B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 343/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Energy Development Company Ltd. Vs DCIT, Circle 12(1) EDCL, House, 1A Elgin Kolkata Road, Kolkata-700020 West Bengal [PAN No. AAACE6969K] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Mahare Yogesh Prabhakar सुनवाई

M/S. DELIGHTED HOLDINGS (P) LTD. ,KOLKATA vs. DCIR, CIR-8(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 624/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

b) Copy of Certificate of incorporation (c) Copy of Audited Accounts (d) Copy of Share sale Invoice (e)Copy of the bank account of the share purchaser company The AO wanted the personal appearance of the directors of the purchaser companies. As there was no compliance this addition u/s 68 is made. In our view this is against the proposition

ITO, WARD-1(1), KOLKATA vs. M/S GEMINI COMMERCE, KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 14/KOL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 14/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Ward - 11(1), M/S. Gemini Commerce Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata Vs 8A, Brown Field Row Kolkata - 700027 [Pan : Aadcg0842J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01/02/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/03/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is The Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 21/09/2022 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of Six (6) Days In Filing Of This Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons Of Delay. After Perusing The Same, We Find That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. Hence, The Delay Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted. 3. The Revenue Has Filed The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.5,61,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Sale Of Unquoted Shares In The Course Of

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

b) Copy of Certificate of incorporation (c) Copy of Audited Accounts (d) Copy of Share sale Invoice (e)Copy of the bank account of the share purchaser company The AO wanted the personal appearance of the directors of the purchaser companies. As there was no compliance this addition u/s 68 is made. In our view this is against the proposition