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.

100 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 40A(3)(a)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai377Delhi329Chennai134Kolkata100Ahmedabad61Bangalore59Jaipur51Amritsar46Hyderabad45Indore32Chandigarh30Rajkot28Pune27Surat20Allahabad18Nagpur15Visakhapatnam13Cuttack13Jodhpur11Raipur10Guwahati9Lucknow7Agra5Dehradun3Ranchi3Calcutta3Patna2Karnataka2Cochin1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)93Section 40A(3)90Addition to Income85Disallowance56Section 14745Section 6841Section 133(6)32Section 4030Section 14828

INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD-12(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S STANDARD LEATHER PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2620/KOL/2013[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2010-11

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

40A(3) of the Act. In the first place, the appellant has amply demonstrated by producing material evidence that the purchases supported with corresponding manufacture and sales are genuine. Secondly, merely because the notices under sec. 133(6) issued to the sellers/ producers of hides and skin render the purchases bogus, and if at all rendered bogus, provisions of section

SRI MALAY MONDAL,BURDWAN vs. I.T.O WD - 2(2),ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 100 · Page 1 of 5

Section 26326
Bogus Purchases19
Survey u/s 133A15
ITA 903/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 40A(3)

purchase of ground nut in cash exceeding prescribed limit – Assessee submitted that her made payment in cash because seller insisted on that and also gave incentives and discounts – Further, seller also issued certificate in support of this – Whether since assessee had placed proof of payment of consideration for its transaction to seller, and later admitted payment and there

SHRI PRABIR KUMAR MULLICK,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD - 3(1), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1603/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2008-09 Prabir Kumar Mullick V/S. Income Tax Officer, Searsol C.S.Shop, Ward-3(1), G.T. Road Shisubagan (Kalali Gali) (West), Asansol Ranigunj (Burdwan) [Pan No.Ajepm 7142 G] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 255(3)Section 260ASection 40A(3)

purchase of ground nut in cash exceeding prescribed limit – Assessee submitted that her made payment in cash because seller insisted on that and also gave incentives and discounts – Further, seller also issued certificate in support of this – Whether since assessee had placed proof of payment of consideration for its transaction to seller, and later admitted payment and there

KAJORA PACHAI & C.S. SHOP,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD - 1(3), DURGAPUR, BURDWAN

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1198/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 40Section 40A(3)

purchase of ground nut in cash exceeding prescribed limit – Assessee submitted that her made payment in cash because seller insisted on that and also gave incentives and discounts – Further, seller also issued certificate in support of this – Whether since assessee had placed proof of payment of consideration for its transaction to seller, and later admitted payment and there

BHAGYA LAKHI ROY (PROP), BIJOY NARAYAN ROY (DECD),BURDWAN vs. ITO, WARD - 3(1), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1602/KOL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2008-09

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 40Section 40A(3)

purchase of ground nut in cash exceeding prescribed limit – Assessee submitted that her made payment in cash because seller insisted on that and also gave incentives and discounts – Further, seller also issued certificate in support of this – Whether since assessee had placed proof of payment of consideration for its transaction to seller, and later admitted payment and there

DCIT, CIR-4, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S MARUTI FREIGHT MOVERS LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 482/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri M. Balaganesh, I.T.A. No. 482/Kol/2014 Assessment Years: 2009-10

Section 250Section 40A(3)Section 43B

bogus transactions made by the appellant even though he had examined the books of accounts and the supporting vouchers of the appellant. Considering the above judicial pronouncements and the nature of business and the local situation, the appellant was forced to do business through certain Associations on the terms set by such Associations. This being the case, if the appellant

SMT SHILA MONDAL,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WD-2(2), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 336/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Aug 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Years:2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 2Section 22Section 40ASection 40A(3)Section 5

purchase of ground nut in cash exceeding ITA No.336/Kol/2014 A.Y.2010-11 Smt. Shila Mondal vs. CIT (A), Asl Page 7 prescribed limit – Assessee submitted that her made payment in cash because seller insisted on that and also gave incentives and discounts – Further, seller also issued certificate in support of this – Whether since assessee had placed proof of payment of consideration

I.T.O WD - 2(3),ASANSOL, ASANSOL vs. M/S PREMIER TRADERS SELF HELP GROUP (H/O KISHORE MONDAL), BURDWAN

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1882/KOL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

purchase as identified as bogus. Recourse to section 40A(3) is not an available option in such a situation.” Being

ARUN KUMAR MONDAL,BURDWAN vs. ITO, WD-2(2), ASANSOL, ASANSOL

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 306/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Aug 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

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

purchase of ground nut in cash exceeding prescribed limit – Assessee submitted that her made payment in cash because seller insisted on that and also gave incentives and discounts – Further, seller also issued certificate in support of this – Whether since assessee had placed proof of payment of consideration for its transaction to seller, and later admitted payment and there

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)

40A(3) of the Act, the addition on the ground of identity of the sundry creditors also cannot be held to be justified. Moreover, the Assessing Officer has not doubted the purchase as he himself has written that there cannot be sales without purchases. In view of this, the addition on account of sundry creditors is not sustainable. This ground

M/S AB (WINES) STORES,KOLKATA vs. PCIT, KOLKATA-14, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 901/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jul 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No.901/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Ab (Wines) Stores -Vs.- Pr. C.I.T., Kolkata-14 Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aajfa 6312 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri R.S.Biswas, Cit Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2017 Order

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.S.Biswas, CIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(3)

section 40A(3) of the Act or that the records show that the purchase claim made or their creditors are bogus

ITO, WD-29(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SPECIAL LEATHER INDUSTRIES, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal (ITA No

ITA 1505/KOL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl.CIT, ld. Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, ld.AR
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 40A(3)

section 40A(3) of the Act under the heads ‘Purchase of Raw materials’ of Rs.5,30,52,747/-, ‘Wage & Labour charges’ of Rs.11,11,329/-, ‘Bogus

ITO, WARD 22(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. K.B. MEDICAL AGENCY, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

ITA 1211/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1209,1210&1211/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years :2010-11 To 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT DR
Section 147

Section 40A(3) of the Act. 4. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.4,30,819/- on account of bogus purchases

M/S. K.B. MEDICAL AGENCY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 22(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

ITA 705/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1209,1210&1211/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years :2010-11 To 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT DR
Section 147

Section 40A(3) of the Act. 4. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.4,30,819/- on account of bogus purchases

M/S. K.B. MEDICAL AGENCY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 22(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

ITA 707/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1209,1210&1211/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years :2010-11 To 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT DR
Section 147

Section 40A(3) of the Act. 4. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.4,30,819/- on account of bogus purchases

M/S. K.B. MEDICAL AGENCY,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 22(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

ITA 706/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1209,1210&1211/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years :2010-11 To 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT DR
Section 147

Section 40A(3) of the Act. 4. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.4,30,819/- on account of bogus purchases

ITO, WARD 22(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. K.B. MEDICAL AGENCY, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

ITA 1210/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1209,1210&1211/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years :2010-11 To 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT DR
Section 147

Section 40A(3) of the Act. 4. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.4,30,819/- on account of bogus purchases

ITO, WARD 22(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. K.B. MEDICAL AGENCY, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue in I

ITA 1209/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1209,1210&1211/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years :2010-11 To 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT DR
Section 147

Section 40A(3) of the Act. 4. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.4,30,819/- on account of bogus purchases

NASIR AHMED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 33(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 2518/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviassessment Year :2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

section 40A(3) of the Act and taking a consistent view of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Sri Manoranjan Raha (supra) we are inclined to reverse the orders of Authorities Below. This ground of assessee’s appeal is allowed. 7. Next ground in this appeal of assessee is that Ld. CIT(A) erred

S.R.ENGINEERING CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-36(2), KOLKATA

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee and both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1456/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble(Kz) & S. S. Godara, Hon’Ble] [Through Virtual Court] I.T.A. Nos. 1455 To 1458 /Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 To 2014-15 M/S. S.R. Engineering Corporation.................................................................................Appellant Stephen House, 6Th Floor, Room No. 101, 56E, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Absfs 6791 B] Vs Ito, Ward – 36(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………..........Respondent Kolkata – 700 069. & I.T.A. Nos. 1585 & 1586 /Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2012-13 Ito, Ward – 36(1), Kolkata...................…………………………………………………..............Appellant Kolkata – 700 069. Vs M/S. S.R. Engineering Corporation.............................................................................Respondent Stephen House, 6Th Floor, Room No. 101, 56E, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Absfs 6791 B] Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Dhrubajyoti Ray, Jcit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 08, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 22, 2020 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz)

Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

bogus, the inevitable conclusion is that the said purchases would have been made by the assessee from grey market as agreed even by the Ld. CIT(A) in his impugned orders and since payments against the said purchases made from grey market must have been made in cash, the provisions of section 40A(3