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.

2,150 results for “bogus purchases”+ Business Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,150Delhi1,233Kolkata350Jaipur325Ahmedabad307Chennai288Bangalore187Chandigarh183Surat135Hyderabad127Pune123Raipur117Indore107Rajkot100Amritsar79Visakhapatnam65Cochin62Nagpur61Guwahati60Lucknow57Agra39Jodhpur35Patna34Allahabad33Cuttack18Dehradun11Jabalpur8Ranchi8Varanasi7Panaji3

Key Topics

Section 14786Addition to Income84Section 14878Section 143(3)77Section 6860Section 153C55Section 25038Section 69C38Disallowance38

INCOME TAX OFFICER-23(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SATGURU GEMS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the R

ITA 4613/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. K A Viadyalingan

bogus accommodation entry of purchase of diamond from the firm accommodation entry of purchase of diamond from the firm accommodation entry of purchase of diamond from the firm controlled and managed by family of Shri Rajendra Jain. The controlled and managed by family of Shri Rajendra Jain. The controlled and managed by family of Shri Rajendra Jain. The specific information

INCOME TAX OFFICER-23(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SATGURU GEMS, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the R

ITA 4644/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2024

Showing 1–20 of 2,150 · Page 1 of 108

...
Bogus Purchases33
Section 271(1)(c)30
Reopening of Assessment26
AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. K A Viadyalingan

bogus accommodation entry of purchase of diamond from the firm accommodation entry of purchase of diamond from the firm accommodation entry of purchase of diamond from the firm controlled and managed by family of Shri Rajendra Jain. The controlled and managed by family of Shri Rajendra Jain. The controlled and managed by family of Shri Rajendra Jain. The specific information

ITO41(2)(3),MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs. NIRMIT JATIN LATHIA, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue

ITA 4828/MUM/2023[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Nirmit Jatin Lathia, Ito 29(2)(2), 2B/101, Jain Upashraya Lane, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Tagore Nagar, Vikhroli East, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Acgpl 0296 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito 41(2)(3), Nirmit Jatin Lathia, Room No. 732, Om Sai Chs, Bldg. No. 2, B-Wing, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Flat No. 101, Opp Bharat Nagar Mumbai-400051. Jain Upashraya Lane, Vikhroli (E), Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Acgpl 0296 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil Shinde, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Mandar Vaidya
Section 1Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

business of purchases and sale purchases and sales and were merely providing merely providing accommodation entry. He further referred that those parties had accommodation entry. He further referred that those parties had accommodation entry. He further referred that those parties had categorically stated on oath that they had merely merely provided accommodation bills and no actual ommodation bills

NIRMIT JATIN LATHIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 29(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue

ITA 4784/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Nirmit Jatin Lathia, Ito 29(2)(2), 2B/101, Jain Upashraya Lane, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Tagore Nagar, Vikhroli East, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Acgpl 0296 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito 41(2)(3), Nirmit Jatin Lathia, Room No. 732, Om Sai Chs, Bldg. No. 2, B-Wing, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Flat No. 101, Opp Bharat Nagar Mumbai-400051. Jain Upashraya Lane, Vikhroli (E), Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Acgpl 0296 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil Shinde, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Mandar Vaidya
Section 1Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

business of purchases and sale purchases and sales and were merely providing merely providing accommodation entry. He further referred that those parties had accommodation entry. He further referred that those parties had accommodation entry. He further referred that those parties had categorically stated on oath that they had merely merely provided accommodation bills and no actual ommodation bills

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS MUMBAI vs. BHARAT HIRALAL SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for eal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 729/MUM/2025[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito, Bharat Hiralal Shah, 501 5Th Floor, Income Tax Office 220, 4Th Floor Badrikashram 1St Piramal Chambers Lalbaug, Vs. Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Aaeps 5511 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Khushali PandyaFor Respondent: Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR

income of the assessee and without assessee and without considering the decision in Sri. Ganesh Rice considering the decision in Sri. Ganesh Rice Mills Vs. CIT 294 ITR 316 (All), wherein the entire amount of bogus Mills Vs. CIT 294 ITR 316 (All), wherein the entire amount of bogus Mills Vs. CIT 294 ITR 316 (All), wherein the entire amount

BHARAT DE vs. HI DAGHA,THANEVS.ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3314/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Kalpesh Khatri, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Kumar Meena, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

purchase treated as income from Hawala dealers as per the income from Hawala dealers as per the information provided by information provided by Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra which is bad in law. Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra which is bad in law. 2. On the facts and in law, the Hon. CIT (A) erred in confirming the 2. On the facts

BHARAT DE vs. HI DAGHA,THANEVS.ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3315/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Kalpesh Khatri, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Kumar Meena, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

purchase treated as income from Hawala dealers as per the income from Hawala dealers as per the information provided by information provided by Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra which is bad in law. Sales Tax Department, Maharashtra which is bad in law. 2. On the facts and in law, the Hon. CIT (A) erred in confirming the 2. On the facts

OMKAR METAL AND ALLOYS CORPORATION ,C P TANK MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 19. 2. 4, MATRU MANDIR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 2838/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Omkar Metal & Alloys Ito 19.2.4, Corporation, C P Tank Matru Mandir, Opp Bhatia Room No. 47, Balakrishna Vs. Hospital, Grant Road (West), Niwas, 2Nd Floor, 2Nd Mumbai-400007. Panjarapole Lane, Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Aaafo 4997 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

business of trading in ferrous and non ferrous and non-ferrous metals. The AO got an information from the ferrous metals. The AO got an information from the Sales Tax Department regarding assessee taken purchase bills which ax Department regarding assessee taken purchase bills which ax Department regarding assessee taken purchase bills which was alleged to be bogus. Accordingly

INCOME TAX OFFICER, KALYAN vs. J D ELECTRIC WORKS, KALYAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4521/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 148

bogus, additions should be made on the entire purchases and not only the profit embedded be made on the entire purchases and not only the profit embedded be made on the entire purchases and not only the profit embedded in such purchases against which the SLP filed by the assessee was in such purchases against which the SLP filed

DCIT CC-7(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAN INDUSTRIES (I) LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 617/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. R.R. Makwana, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Mr. K. Gopal
Section 143(3)Section 68

business of manufacturing and export of large diameter carbon steel l diameter carbon steel line pipes for various high pressure transport ine pipes for various high pressure transport applications. The assessee filed its return of income electronically assessee filed its return of income electronically assessee filed its return of income electronically on 29.09.2012 declaring total income at Rs.154

DCIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S MAN INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 618/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. R.R. Makwana, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Mr. K. Gopal
Section 143(3)Section 68

business of manufacturing and export of large diameter carbon steel l diameter carbon steel line pipes for various high pressure transport ine pipes for various high pressure transport applications. The assessee filed its return of income electronically assessee filed its return of income electronically assessee filed its return of income electronically on 29.09.2012 declaring total income at Rs.154

M/S. GURJAR GEMS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 9(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 213/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Gurjar Gems Pvt. Ltd., Acit, Circle 9(3)(2), Plot No. F-17 Midc, Marol Aayakar Bhavan, Industrial Area, Opp. Seepz, Vs. Maharshi Karve Road, Andheri (E), Chakala Midc S.O., Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400093. Pan No. Aaacg 3685 L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Ravikant Pathak, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Milind S. Chavan, Dr : Date Of Hearing 24/03/2023 : Date Of Pronouncement 31/03/2023 Order

For Appellant: Mr. Ravikant Pathak, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Milind S. Chavan, DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Income-tax Department epartment, Mumbai that assessee received an Mumbai that assessee received an accommodation entry of bogus purchase from Sri Anil Chokara accommodation entry of bogus purchase from Sri Anil Chokara accommodation entry of bogus purchase from Sri Anil Chokara (Prop. Of Keshav Impex) (Prop. Of Keshav Impex) during the year under consideration, the during the year under consideration

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -23(1) , MUMBAI vs. KALPSARU DIAMONDS, MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3400/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2012-13 Kalpsaru Diamonds, Acit 23(2), Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-23(1), Kalpsaru Diamonds, Room No. 511, Fifth Floor, Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Lalbaugh-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Ajay Singh
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

bogus purchases based on information received from Sales information received from Sales Tax Department of Maharashtra Govt. Tax Department of Maharashtra Govt. and Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, as discussed and Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, as discussed and Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, as discussed below.” 6. We have heard rival submission

KALPSARU DIAMONDS ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 23(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3223/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2012-13 Kalpsaru Diamonds, Acit 23(2), Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-23(1), Kalpsaru Diamonds, Room No. 511, Fifth Floor, Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Lalbaugh-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Ajay Singh
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

bogus purchases based on information received from Sales information received from Sales Tax Department of Maharashtra Govt. Tax Department of Maharashtra Govt. and Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, as discussed and Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, as discussed and Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, as discussed below.” 6. We have heard rival submission

ITO 6 (1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S A J COAL PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5718/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-6(1)(1), M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 24A, Coal Depot, Sewree (E), Vs. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor, M.K. Mumbai-400015. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Ito-6(1)(1), C/O M/S Jayesh Sanghrajka & Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 503, Co. Llp, 405, Hind Rajasthan Vs. 5Th Floor, M.K. Road, New Marine Centre, Ds Phalke Road, Dadar Lines, Mumbai-400020. (East), Mumbai-400014. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Shubham Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Indira Adakil, DR
Section 148Section 151

business of trading in coke and coal and under consideration, the assessee filed return of income on under consideration, the assessee filed return of income on under consideration, the assessee filed return of income on 29/09/2009 declaring total income at ₹21,10,400/ 29/09/2009 declaring total income at 400/-, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Income processed

M/S A J COAL PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7289/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-6(1)(1), M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 24A, Coal Depot, Sewree (E), Vs. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor, M.K. Mumbai-400015. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Ito-6(1)(1), C/O M/S Jayesh Sanghrajka & Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 503, Co. Llp, 405, Hind Rajasthan Vs. 5Th Floor, M.K. Road, New Marine Centre, Ds Phalke Road, Dadar Lines, Mumbai-400020. (East), Mumbai-400014. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Shubham Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Indira Adakil, DR
Section 148Section 151

business of trading in coke and coal and under consideration, the assessee filed return of income on under consideration, the assessee filed return of income on under consideration, the assessee filed return of income on 29/09/2009 declaring total income at ₹21,10,400/ 29/09/2009 declaring total income at 400/-, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Income processed

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S SKYWAY INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, whereas appeals of the revenue are par...

ITA 2665/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 & Assessment Year: 2020-21

income of an Assessee has to be computed on the basis of undisclosed income of an Assessee has to be computed on the basis of undisclosed income of an Assessee has to be computed on the basis of evidence and material found during search. The statement recorded evidence and material found during search. The statement recorded evidence and material found

DCIT-CC-8(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PAMSTAR EXPORTS, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3694/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mr. Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt (Sr. DR)

bogus purchases. However, at the same time the Assessing Officer has accepted the sales turnover declared by the assessee. The Assessing Officer estimated profit margin on such purchases at 8% and the CIT(A) has upheld the same. Taking into consideration the nature of A.Y. 2007-08 to 2014-15 assessee’s business, I am of the view that profit

DCIT-CC-8(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PAMSTAR EXPORTS, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3689/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mr. Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt (Sr. DR)

bogus purchases. However, at the same time the Assessing Officer has accepted the sales turnover declared by the assessee. The Assessing Officer estimated profit margin on such purchases at 8% and the CIT(A) has upheld the same. Taking into consideration the nature of A.Y. 2007-08 to 2014-15 assessee’s business, I am of the view that profit

DCIT-CC-8(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. PAMSTAR EXPORTS, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3691/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Mr. Suchek AnchaliyaFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt (Sr. DR)

bogus purchases. However, at the same time the Assessing Officer has accepted the sales turnover declared by the assessee. The Assessing Officer estimated profit margin on such purchases at 8% and the CIT(A) has upheld the same. Taking into consideration the nature of A.Y. 2007-08 to 2014-15 assessee’s business, I am of the view that profit