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.

3 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 206Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi54Ahmedabad9Kolkata6Jodhpur3Mumbai3Indore2Chennai2Cuttack1Rajkot1

Key Topics

Section 69C6Section 14A6Section 1434Section 1422Section 206C2Bogus Purchases2Disallowance2Addition to Income2

DCIT 32(2), MUMBAI vs. METFORM CORPORATION, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2011-2012

ITA 4167/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Metform Corporation, Tax -32(2), 601-602, Siddharth Arcace, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Factory Lane, L.T. Road, Room No. 308, C-10, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Borivali (West), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400092 Bandra (East), Pan: Aaafm9883D Mumbai - 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Ms. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (Dr) Assessee By : Shri M. Subramanian (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 06/06/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2019

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian (AR)For Respondent: Ms. Jothi Lakshmi Nayak (DR)
Section 143Section 14ASection 206CSection 69C

Section 206C and also the assessee failed to furnish the form No. 27C from all the parties to whom the scrap has been sold. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting addition of unexplained expenditure of Rs. 37,425/- on account of bogus purchases

DCIT 32(2), MUMBAI vs. METCRAFT ENGG. CORPORATION, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for assessment year 2011-2012

ITA 4170/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Metcraft Engg. Corporation, Tax -32(2), 601-602, Siddharth Arcace, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Factory Lane, L.T. Road, Room No. 308, C-10, 3Rd Floor, Vs. Borivali (West), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400092 Bandra (East), Pan: Aaafm1677M Mumbai - 400051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri M. Naveen (Dr) Assessee By : Shri M. Subramanian (Ar) Date Of Hearing: 06/06/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2019

For Appellant: Shri M. Subramanian (AR)For Respondent: Shri M. Naveen (DR)
Section 143Section 14ASection 206CSection 69C

Section 206C and also the assessee failed to furnish the form No. 27C from all the parties to whom the scrap has been sold. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in deleting addition of unexplained expenditure of Rs. 2,75,198/- on account of bogus purchases

ITO-33(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. SHRI VIKRAM BAIJNATH AGARWAL, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed and cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 103/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 33(1)(2) V. Shri Vikrambaijnath Agarwal Room No. 945, 9Th Floor 2003/04, Birchwood Raheja Villows Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex Lokhandwala Township Nr Mahindra Gate 4 Kandivali (E), Mumbai - 400101 Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Adepa8582C Appellant Respondent

Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

bogus or in cash for ₹.20,000 or more. 12. Assessee paid freight charges to carriers for transporting gold and silver, as per prevailing local practice. He gave details of persons to whom paid with proper vouchers. Assessing Officer disallowed entire freight charges of ₹.1,54,125 and assessee submitted that which was wholly incurred for purpose of business. Assessee