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.

437 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 251clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai437Delhi264Jaipur124Karnataka105Chandigarh59Ahmedabad52Bangalore40Surat35Kolkata32Nagpur25Rajkot24Chennai23Pune20Raipur18Lucknow15Hyderabad14Guwahati12Indore10Amritsar10Cuttack5Visakhapatnam3Allahabad3Varanasi2Agra2Patna1Jodhpur1Jabalpur1Cochin1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)67Addition to Income51Section 14749Section 14849Section 143(3)39Bogus Purchases28Section 6825Section 143(2)22Penalty22

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

Showing 1–20 of 437 · Page 1 of 22

...
Disallowance18
Section 25016
Section 26316

251 Total Total 2,75,25,669/ 2,75,25,669/- 4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) held that against the bogus On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) held that against the bogus On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) held that against the bogus bills, assessee must have made bogus purchases from the market assessee must

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

251 Total Total 2,75,25,669/ 2,75,25,669/- 4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) held that against the bogus On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) held that against the bogus On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) held that against the bogus bills, assessee must have made bogus purchases from the market assessee must

HYDROAIR TECTONICS (PCD) LTD,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 2(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3949/MUM/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 132Section 132(4)

bogus sales. The ld. AR also argued the case in light of provisions of section 153A and submitted that it does not amount to fresh claim in return filed u/s 153A. The Ld.AR 38 Hydroair Tectonics (PCD) Ltd further submitted that in case of abated assessments, the assessee can very well make a claim which was not made in original

RAJKUMARI SINGH,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT CEN CIR 8, MUMBAI

ITA 946/MUM/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri G Manjunatha ()

Section 132Section 132(4)

bogus sales. The ld. AR also argued the case in light of provisions of section 153A and submitted that it does not amount to fresh claim in return filed u/s 153A. The Ld.AR 38 Hydroair Tectonics (PCD) Ltd further submitted that in case of abated assessments, the assessee can very well make a claim which was not made in original

DCIT 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SUNRISE METALLIC (INDIA) P.LD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3628/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit 4(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Sunrise Metallic R.No.649, 6Th Floor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Shiva Industrial Estate, Mumbai – 400 020 Near Tata Power House Lake Road, Bhandup (W) Mumbai – 400 078 Pan/Gir No.Aajcs2965E Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 147

251 (Bom) Where the identity of the persons from whom goods are purchases has been explained, payment are made by account payee cheques, transactions are recorded in books, no addition can be made.. ITO V/s Suhana Trading 92 ITD 212 (M.um)(para 98) Where a quantitative tally of sales is furnished, even if purchasers are not available, no addition

REFRIGERATED DEISTRIBUTORS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of assessee are partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2985/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

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

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148

bogus, but were made from parties other than those mentioned in books of account, only the profit element embedded in such purchases could be added to the assessee's income and as such no question of Law arose in such estimation While arriving at the above conclusion, the Hon'ble Court also retied on the decision in the case

REFRIGERATED DEISTRIBUTORS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of assessee are partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2987/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

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

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148

bogus, but were made from parties other than those mentioned in books of account, only the profit element embedded in such purchases could be added to the assessee's income and as such no question of Law arose in such estimation While arriving at the above conclusion, the Hon'ble Court also retied on the decision in the case

DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. REFRIGERATED DISTRIBUTORS P.LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of assessee are partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 781/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

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

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148

bogus, but were made from parties other than those mentioned in books of account, only the profit element embedded in such purchases could be added to the assessee's income and as such no question of Law arose in such estimation While arriving at the above conclusion, the Hon'ble Court also retied on the decision in the case

REFRIGERATED DEISTRIBUTORS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of assessee are partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2984/MUM/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

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

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148

bogus, but were made from parties other than those mentioned in books of account, only the profit element embedded in such purchases could be added to the assessee's income and as such no question of Law arose in such estimation While arriving at the above conclusion, the Hon'ble Court also retied on the decision in the case

REFRIGERATED DEISTRIBUTORS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of assessee are partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2986/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

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

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148

bogus, but were made from parties other than those mentioned in books of account, only the profit element embedded in such purchases could be added to the assessee's income and as such no question of Law arose in such estimation While arriving at the above conclusion, the Hon'ble Court also retied on the decision in the case

REFRIGERATED DEISTRIBUTORS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, all the five appeals of assessee are partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2988/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

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

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148

bogus, but were made from parties other than those mentioned in books of account, only the profit element embedded in such purchases could be added to the assessee's income and as such no question of Law arose in such estimation While arriving at the above conclusion, the Hon'ble Court also retied on the decision in the case

GOLD STAR DIAMOND PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2964/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nishant Thakker &For Respondent: Hemant Kumar Chimanlal
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 40(3)

bogus purchases by disallowing 12.5% of the disputed purchases after considering the explanation of the assessee. 11.Further careful reading of clause (c) of Explanation-1 of sub Sec. (1) of Section 263 of the Act prescribed that where any order referred in the sub section and passed by Assessing officer had been the subject matter of the any appeal after

GOLD STAR DIAMOND PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2965/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nishant Thakker &For Respondent: Hemant Kumar Chimanlal
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 40(3)

bogus purchases by disallowing 12.5% of the disputed purchases after considering the explanation of the assessee. 11.Further careful reading of clause (c) of Explanation-1 of sub Sec. (1) of Section 263 of the Act prescribed that where any order referred in the sub section and passed by Assessing officer had been the subject matter of the any appeal after

LAVAPAL R. SINGH,GUJARAT vs. SCIT , CC-1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 354/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Sr. No.

For Appellant: Mr. Suchek Anchaliya &For Respondent: Mr. Manoj Sinha, DR
Section 147

section 251(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in violation of the principles of natural justice. violation of the principles of natural justice. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, e facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, e facts and in the circumstances of the case

ABHIMAN GEMS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT .CC-1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 312/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Sr. No.

For Appellant: Mr. Suchek Anchaliya &For Respondent: Mr. Manoj Sinha, DR
Section 147

section 251(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in violation of the principles of natural justice. violation of the principles of natural justice. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, e facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, e facts and in the circumstances of the case

ANKITA EXPORTS ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 330/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Sr. No.

For Appellant: Mr. Suchek Anchaliya &For Respondent: Mr. Manoj Sinha, DR
Section 147

section 251(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in violation of the principles of natural justice. violation of the principles of natural justice. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, e facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, e facts and in the circumstances of the case

AMIT DIAMONDS,GUJARAT vs. ACIT CC-1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 349/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Sr. No.

For Appellant: Mr. Suchek Anchaliya &For Respondent: Mr. Manoj Sinha, DR
Section 147

section 251(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in violation of the principles of natural justice. violation of the principles of natural justice. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, e facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, e facts and in the circumstances of the case

LITTLE DIAM ,GUJARAT vs. ACIT CC -1(3) , MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 361/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Sr. No.

For Appellant: Mr. Suchek Anchaliya &For Respondent: Mr. Manoj Sinha, DR
Section 147

section 251(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in violation of the principles of natural justice. violation of the principles of natural justice. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, e facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, e facts and in the circumstances of the case

LAXMI TRADING COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 351/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Sr. No.

For Appellant: Mr. Suchek Anchaliya &For Respondent: Mr. Manoj Sinha, DR
Section 147

section 251(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in violation of the principles of natural justice. violation of the principles of natural justice. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, e facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, e facts and in the circumstances of the case

LUNKARAN KOTHARI,SURAT vs. ACIT CC -1(3), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 344/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Sr. No.

For Appellant: Mr. Suchek Anchaliya &For Respondent: Mr. Manoj Sinha, DR
Section 147

section 251(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in violation of the principles of natural justice. violation of the principles of natural justice. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, e facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, e facts and in the circumstances of the case