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.

28 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 194Hclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi30Mumbai28Kolkata16Ahmedabad9Hyderabad5Cuttack5Jaipur3Amritsar2Rajkot2Chandigarh1Bangalore1Pune1

Key Topics

Section 4088Section 194C48Section 40a33Disallowance26Section 143(3)25Deduction25TDS24Addition to Income22Section 20116Section 21

IDEA CELLULAR LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR TO SPICE COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED),MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE- 3(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3425/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Is Interconnected With Ground No.Ii. Hence, They Are Taken Up Together For Disposal.

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40Section 40a

purchase of prepaid cards. Only after the resale of those prepaid cards, distributors would derive income. At the time of the assessee selling these pre-paid cards, he is not in possession of any income belonging to the distributor. Therefore, the question of any income accruing or arising to the distributor at the point of time of sale of prepaid

KAMLESH GUPTA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - 13(3)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Showing 1–20 of 28 · Page 1 of 2

16
Section 37(1)15
Section 69C8
ITA 1462/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood () Kamlesh Gupta Dy. Commissioner Of 59, Mount Unique 62-A, Vs. Income-Tax (13)(3)(1) Peddar Road, Room No. 229, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 026 M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Pan No. Aegpg6788R

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kanandan, D.R
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

194H of the Act and, consequently, the tax relevant to that amount cannot constitute default in payment of advance tax. Therefore, interest under Section 234B on the amount of tax relevant to that amount cannot be levied. d) Further, the appellant is confident that the issues taken up by him in this appeal will be decided in his favour

DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 3646/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

194H – Brokerage Expenses/ 2,50,000 Nil 2,50,000 commission Section 194J – professional charges 50,000 Nil 50,000 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct Expenses 92,400 Nil 92,400 @20% of Rs. 462,000 as 92,400 5. Adhoc Disallowance for Indirect 2,95,829 1,47,915 1,47,915 Expenses

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 7209/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

194H – Brokerage Expenses/ 2,50,000 Nil 2,50,000 commission Section 194J – professional charges 50,000 Nil 50,000 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct Expenses 92,400 Nil 92,400 @20% of Rs. 462,000 as 92,400 5. Adhoc Disallowance for Indirect 2,95,829 1,47,915 1,47,915 Expenses

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 7213/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

194H – Brokerage Expenses/ 2,50,000 Nil 2,50,000 commission Section 194J – professional charges 50,000 Nil 50,000 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct Expenses 92,400 Nil 92,400 @20% of Rs. 462,000 as 92,400 5. Adhoc Disallowance for Indirect 2,95,829 1,47,915 1,47,915 Expenses

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 7212/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

194H – Brokerage Expenses/ 2,50,000 Nil 2,50,000 commission Section 194J – professional charges 50,000 Nil 50,000 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct Expenses 92,400 Nil 92,400 @20% of Rs. 462,000 as 92,400 5. Adhoc Disallowance for Indirect 2,95,829 1,47,915 1,47,915 Expenses

ASST CIT CC-22, MUMBAI vs. JAWAHAR PUROHIT, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 6848/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

194H – Brokerage Expenses/ 2,50,000 Nil 2,50,000 commission Section 194J – professional charges 50,000 Nil 50,000 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct Expenses 92,400 Nil 92,400 @20% of Rs. 462,000 as 92,400 5. Adhoc Disallowance for Indirect 2,95,829 1,47,915 1,47,915 Expenses

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 3711/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

194H – Brokerage Expenses/ 2,50,000 Nil 2,50,000 commission Section 194J – professional charges 50,000 Nil 50,000 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct Expenses 92,400 Nil 92,400 @20% of Rs. 462,000 as 92,400 5. Adhoc Disallowance for Indirect 2,95,829 1,47,915 1,47,915 Expenses

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 7208/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

194H – Brokerage Expenses/ 2,50,000 Nil 2,50,000 commission Section 194J – professional charges 50,000 Nil 50,000 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct Expenses 92,400 Nil 92,400 @20% of Rs. 462,000 as 92,400 5. Adhoc Disallowance for Indirect 2,95,829 1,47,915 1,47,915 Expenses

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 7211/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

194H – Brokerage Expenses/ 2,50,000 Nil 2,50,000 commission Section 194J – professional charges 50,000 Nil 50,000 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct Expenses 92,400 Nil 92,400 @20% of Rs. 462,000 as 92,400 5. Adhoc Disallowance for Indirect 2,95,829 1,47,915 1,47,915 Expenses

M. R. CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 790/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

194H – Brokerage Expenses/ 2,50,000 Nil 2,50,000 commission Section 194J – professional charges 50,000 Nil 50,000 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct Expenses 92,400 Nil 92,400 @20% of Rs. 462,000 as 92,400 5. Adhoc Disallowance for Indirect 2,95,829 1,47,915 1,47,915 Expenses

ACIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 1144/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

194H – Brokerage Expenses/ 2,50,000 Nil 2,50,000 commission Section 194J – professional charges 50,000 Nil 50,000 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct Expenses 92,400 Nil 92,400 @20% of Rs. 462,000 as 92,400 5. Adhoc Disallowance for Indirect 2,95,829 1,47,915 1,47,915 Expenses

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,.,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 3710/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

194H – Brokerage Expenses/ 2,50,000 Nil 2,50,000 commission Section 194J – professional charges 50,000 Nil 50,000 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct Expenses 92,400 Nil 92,400 @20% of Rs. 462,000 as 92,400 5. Adhoc Disallowance for Indirect 2,95,829 1,47,915 1,47,915 Expenses

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 7214/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

194H – Brokerage Expenses/ 2,50,000 Nil 2,50,000 commission Section 194J – professional charges 50,000 Nil 50,000 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct Expenses 92,400 Nil 92,400 @20% of Rs. 462,000 as 92,400 5. Adhoc Disallowance for Indirect 2,95,829 1,47,915 1,47,915 Expenses

M.R. CONSTRUCTION,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CEN CIR 22,

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 3709/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

194H – Brokerage Expenses/ 2,50,000 Nil 2,50,000 commission Section 194J – professional charges 50,000 Nil 50,000 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct Expenses 92,400 Nil 92,400 @20% of Rs. 462,000 as 92,400 5. Adhoc Disallowance for Indirect 2,95,829 1,47,915 1,47,915 Expenses

ASST CIT CC-22, MUMBAI vs. JAWAHAR PUROHIT, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 6847/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

194H – Brokerage Expenses/ 2,50,000 Nil 2,50,000 commission Section 194J – professional charges 50,000 Nil 50,000 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct Expenses 92,400 Nil 92,400 @20% of Rs. 462,000 as 92,400 5. Adhoc Disallowance for Indirect 2,95,829 1,47,915 1,47,915 Expenses

JAWAHAR B. PUROHIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22XC, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 7210/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

194H – Brokerage Expenses/ 2,50,000 Nil 2,50,000 commission Section 194J – professional charges 50,000 Nil 50,000 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct Expenses 92,400 Nil 92,400 @20% of Rs. 462,000 as 92,400 5. Adhoc Disallowance for Indirect 2,95,829 1,47,915 1,47,915 Expenses

DCIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI vs. M.R. CONSTRUCTION, MUMBAI

In the result, in the case of M

ITA 3645/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 201Section 21Section 40Section 40a

194H – Brokerage Expenses/ 2,50,000 Nil 2,50,000 commission Section 194J – professional charges 50,000 Nil 50,000 4. Adhoc Disallowance for direct Expenses 92,400 Nil 92,400 @20% of Rs. 462,000 as 92,400 5. Adhoc Disallowance for Indirect 2,95,829 1,47,915 1,47,915 Expenses

PATON FASHION P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 8(2), MUMBAI

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2411/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Paton Fashion Pvt. Ltd. Acit -10(3)(2) 10, Sagar Complex, M. G. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vile Parle (East), Vs. Mumbai. Mumbai-400057 Pan:Aadcp8002H (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit -10(3)(2) M/S Paton Fashion Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, 10, Sagar Complex, M. G. Road, Mumbai. Vs. Vile Parle (East), Mumbai-400057 Pan:Aadcp8002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Respondent: Mrs. Pooja Swaroop (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)

section 143(3) r.w.s. 145(3) of the Act. The Assessing Officer assessed the total income of assessee at Rs. 5,58,02,070/-. The assessing officer while passing the assessment order made various addition consisting of difference in Gross Profit , unaccounted sale of goods, bogus purchases, expenditure on sale promotion made in cash, unexplained expenditure from hawala parties, addition

ACIT CIR 6(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. JSM CORPORATION P. LTD, MUMBAI

The appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6924/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 44ASection 69C

bogus purchases and thus is a beneficiary of Hawala transaction. As per the Revenue, the assessee made purchases amounting to Rs.41,162/-, which were added under section 69C of the Act, being unexplained expenditure/unverifiable. On appeal, before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), the addition was deleted, against which the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal