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.

292 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 41clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,650Delhi1,113Jaipur317Kolkata292Chennai284Ahmedabad213Bangalore173Surat148Pune143Hyderabad122Chandigarh120Karnataka112Indore87Cochin60Raipur60Amritsar59Nagpur53Guwahati51Rajkot51Visakhapatnam36Calcutta36Lucknow34Cuttack30Allahabad29Agra23Jodhpur17Patna11Telangana7Varanasi6Dehradun5Jabalpur5Panaji4Ranchi3SC3Bombay1

Key Topics

Addition to Income78Section 14777Section 14872Section 143(3)60Section 6853Disallowance30Section 143(2)27Section 115J26Section 25026

M/S GREEN STAR CORPORATION,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE - 45, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed in part

ITA 2463/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 41(1)

bogus. On a query from the Bench, the Ld. DR submitted that additions can be made u/s. 41(1) of the Act. He argued that neither the Ld. AO nor the Ld. CIT(A) had invoked this section of the Act. The Ld. DR submitted that it is implied that this section was invoked by the assessing authority

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND SPONGE AND IRON PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Showing 1–20 of 292 · Page 1 of 15

...
Section 13222
Reassessment18
Reopening of Assessment17
ITA 1596/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed
ITAT Kolkata
09 Dec 2025
AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A

41. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. A.Y. 2018-19 D. 1702/KOL/2025 (Revenue’s appeal) 42. The issue raised in ground nos.1, 2 & 3 of this appeal is against the order of ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of ₹37,24,182/- as made by the AO on account of bogus purchases. Balmukund Lease Fin Private

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1699/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A

41. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. A.Y. 2018-19 D. 1702/KOL/2025 (Revenue’s appeal) 42. The issue raised in ground nos.1, 2 & 3 of this appeal is against the order of ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of ₹37,24,182/- as made by the AO on account of bogus purchases. Balmukund Lease Fin Private

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1703/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A

41. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. A.Y. 2018-19 D. 1702/KOL/2025 (Revenue’s appeal) 42. The issue raised in ground nos.1, 2 & 3 of this appeal is against the order of ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of ₹37,24,182/- as made by the AO on account of bogus purchases. Balmukund Lease Fin Private

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1702/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A

41. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. A.Y. 2018-19 D. 1702/KOL/2025 (Revenue’s appeal) 42. The issue raised in ground nos.1, 2 & 3 of this appeal is against the order of ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of ₹37,24,182/- as made by the AO on account of bogus purchases. Balmukund Lease Fin Private

GOPAL & SONS HUF,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 32(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1701/KOL/2024[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2025AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A

41. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. A.Y. 2018-19 D. 1702/KOL/2025 (Revenue’s appeal) 42. The issue raised in ground nos.1, 2 & 3 of this appeal is against the order of ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of ₹37,24,182/- as made by the AO on account of bogus purchases. Balmukund Lease Fin Private

OM FORGING & ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. THE PR. CIT-1, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result the appeals are allowed

ITA 509/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am ]

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Md.Usman, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 263

section 69C of the Act are not mandatory and that Assessing Authority has full discretion either to add or not to add unexplained expenditure in income of assessee based upon sound judicial principles . 19. The other submissions made before the CIT were reiterated. 20. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the order of the CIT. According

MANOJ BEGANI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 934/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

41,440/- being bogus purchase of diamonds from M/s. Kangan Jewels Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘M/s. Kangan’). Likewise, for AY 2011-12, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of Rs.38,99,463/- being bogus purchase of diamonds from M/s. Kangan. Similarly, for AY 2012-13, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.35

MANOJ BEGANI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 935/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

41,440/- being bogus purchase of diamonds from M/s. Kangan Jewels Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘M/s. Kangan’). Likewise, for AY 2011-12, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of Rs.38,99,463/- being bogus purchase of diamonds from M/s. Kangan. Similarly, for AY 2012-13, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.35

MANOJ BEGANI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 932/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

41,440/- being bogus purchase of diamonds from M/s. Kangan Jewels Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘M/s. Kangan’). Likewise, for AY 2011-12, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of Rs.38,99,463/- being bogus purchase of diamonds from M/s. Kangan. Similarly, for AY 2012-13, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.35

MANOJ BEGANI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 936/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

41,440/- being bogus purchase of diamonds from M/s. Kangan Jewels Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘M/s. Kangan’). Likewise, for AY 2011-12, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of Rs.38,99,463/- being bogus purchase of diamonds from M/s. Kangan. Similarly, for AY 2012-13, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.35

MANOJ BEGANI,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-44, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 933/KOL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

41,440/- being bogus purchase of diamonds from M/s. Kangan Jewels Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘M/s. Kangan’). Likewise, for AY 2011-12, the Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition of Rs.38,99,463/- being bogus purchase of diamonds from M/s. Kangan. Similarly, for AY 2012-13, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.35

ITO WD 48(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SRI PUSPAL KUMAR DAS, HOWRAH

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

ITA 1442/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, A.M. & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M.)

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Uday Kr. Sardar, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

bogus purchases and has considered the difference in respect of the outstanding balance of these creditors on 31.03.2007 as cessation of liability u/s.41(1). It is however seen that the A.O. has while disallowing the same not only confused himself but has also not understood the applicability of section 41

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)

section 41(1) or 68 of the Act.:- (i) That the purchase of the hides from the sundry creditors is evident from the purchase bills and books of accounts maintained by the appellant. As regards the treatment of the same as bogus

JASHOJIT MUKHERJEE,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR-50, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 403/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 403/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jashojit Mukherjee -Vs- Acit, Circle-50, Kolkata [Pan: Afapm 7208 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Himmatsinghka, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

bogus sundry creditors u/s 41(1) of IT Act despite there is no cessation of liability, which is completely wrong, arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The addition in the sum of Rs 1,08,65,202/- has been made u/s 41

DCIT, CIR-10(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. PRABIR ROY CHOWDHURY, KOLKATA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the CO of the assessee is partly

ITA 1407/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Mar 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Sri Aby T.Varkey & Dr. A. L. Saini

Section 133(6)Section 41(1)

bogus claim and for doing so invoked Section 41(1) of the Act for doing so. On appeal the Ld. 4 5 I.T.A.No.1407/Kol/2015 & C.O.No.60/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2012-13 CIT(A) took note of the provision of Section 41(1) of the Act and observed that the liability towards Sri Bimal Kumar Gupta of Rs.60 Lakhs was only

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. HINDUSTHAN ENGINEERING & INDUSTRIES LTD., , KOLKATA

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

ITA 1059/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.952/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT
Section 131Section 143(3)

41,569/- in the aggregate ( Rs. 2,19,75,602/- + Rs. 3,82,65,967/-) mainly because of the alleged non-availability of those two parties without at all considering the facts explained by the assessee with supporting documents that the purchases made and the prices paid by a/c payee cheques, duly recorded in its books

M/S. HINDISTHAN ENGINEEING & INDISTRIES LTD.,,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -5 KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 952/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.952/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT
Section 131Section 143(3)

41,569/- in the aggregate ( Rs. 2,19,75,602/- + Rs. 3,82,65,967/-) mainly because of the alleged non-availability of those two parties without at all considering the facts explained by the assessee with supporting documents that the purchases made and the prices paid by a/c payee cheques, duly recorded in its books

BINOD KUMAR TEKRIWAL ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 10, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

ITA 1133/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri A. T. Varkey

Section 139Section 147Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

section 69C of the Act there is no scope for partial disallowance under the said provision. After considering the reply of the assessee at para 10 of this order he ordered as follows: 10. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, and also respectfully following the judgments cited above particularly that

MRS. PREMLATA TEKRIWAL ,KOLKATA vs. PRINCIPAL CIT - 10, KOLKATA , KOLKATA

In the result, all the appeals of these assessees are allowed

ITA 1129/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri A. T. Varkey

Section 139Section 147Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

section 69C of the Act there is no scope for partial disallowance under the said provision. After considering the reply of the assessee at para 10 of this order he ordered as follows: 10. Accordingly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, and also respectfully following the judgments cited above particularly that