Search: bogus purchases | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

2,358 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 5clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,358 Delhi1,398 Kolkata394 Ahmedabad367 Jaipur354 Chennai276 Bangalore190 Surat187 Chandigarh178 Hyderabad140 Indore127 Raipur125 Rajkot117 Pune110 Amritsar81 Guwahati67 Nagpur66 Visakhapatnam65 Lucknow61 Cochin61 Agra41 Jodhpur41 Patna34 Allahabad33 Cuttack25 Ranchi22 Dehradun18 Jabalpur12 Varanasi7 Panaji3

Key Topics

Addition to Income86 Section 14884 Section 14783 Section 143(3)59 Section 6852 Section 153C45 Section 69C42 Bogus Purchases39 Section 271(1)(c)36

SILMOHAN GEMS PVT LTD. COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

ITA 472/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Ms. Mitali Mehta a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 40A(3)Section 69C

5% on the bogus purchases, secondly secondly, aggrieved for sustaining the disallowance of Rs.8,48,660/- in terms of section

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SILMOHAN GEMS PRIVATE LIMTED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

ITA 450/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 2,358 · Page 1 of 118

...

Reopening of Assessment30

ITAT Mumbai

13 Jun 2023

AY 2012-2013

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

For Appellant: Ms. Mitali Mehta a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 40A(3)Section 69C

5% on the bogus purchases, secondly secondly, aggrieved for sustaining the disallowance of Rs.8,48,660/- in terms of section

SILMOHAN GEMS PVT LTD. COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

ITA 471/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Ms. Mitali Mehta a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 40A(3)Section 69C

5% on the bogus purchases, secondly secondly, aggrieved for sustaining the disallowance of Rs.8,48,660/- in terms of section

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SILMOHAN GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

ITA 449/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2013-2014

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

For Appellant: Ms. Mitali Mehta a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR

Section 40A(3)Section 69C

5% on the bogus purchases, secondly secondly, aggrieved for sustaining the disallowance of Rs.8,48,660/- in terms of section

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

5. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way the Tribunal by way of raising the grounds as reproduced above. of raising the grounds as reproduced above. 6. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused

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

5. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way the Tribunal by way of raising the grounds as reproduced above. of raising the grounds as reproduced above. 6. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused

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

section 145 of the Act. circumstances, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire bogus circumstances, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire bogus circumstances, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire bogus purchases amounting to Rs.2,75,25,669/ purchases amounting to Rs.2,75,25,669/-. But the Ld. CIT(A) . But the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the addition to the extent

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

section 145 of the Act. circumstances, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire bogus circumstances, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire bogus circumstances, the Assessing Officer disallowed the entire bogus purchases amounting to Rs.2,75,25,669/ purchases amounting to Rs.2,75,25,669/-. But the Ld. CIT(A) . But the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the addition to the extent

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

bogus purchases is unsustainable. The assessing officer is directed to delete the penalty. The grounds of appeals are directed to delete the penalty. The grounds of appeals are directed to delete the penalty. The grounds of appeals are allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Man Industries

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

bogus purchases is unsustainable. The assessing officer is directed to delete the penalty. The grounds of appeals are directed to delete the penalty. The grounds of appeals are directed to delete the penalty. The grounds of appeals are allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Man Industries

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

section 145(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer acquired the mandate even to add the whole Assessing Officer acquired the mandate even to add the whole Assessing Officer acquired the mandate even to add the whole amount of purchases found as bogus to the total income of the amount of purchases found as bogus to the total income

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

5. The Commission The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding er of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding order made under section 143(3) rws 147 of the Act which is order made under section 143(3) rws 147 of the Act which is order made under section 143(3) rws 147 of the Act which is illegal

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 to 25% in place of 100% applied in the asses 100% applied in the assessment order. Thus, the grounds of appeal sment order. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on this issue are treated as partly allowed. raised by the assessee on this issue are treated as partly allowed. raised by the assessee on this

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 to 25% in place of 100% applied in the asses 100% applied in the assessment order. Thus, the grounds of appeal sment order. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on this issue are treated as partly allowed. raised by the assessee on this issue are treated as partly allowed. raised by the assessee on this

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

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the ) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. On further appeal On further appeal, the ld CIT(A) deleted the addition. Aggrieved, , the ld CIT(A) deleted the addition. Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal raising grounds reproduced above. the Revenue is in appeal raising grounds reproduced above. the Revenue is in appeal raising grounds reproduced

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

5. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Id.CIT(A) has erred in restrict law, Id.CIT(A) has erred in restricting the quantum addition ing the quantum addition ignoring that the information on account of bogus purchases is ignoring that the information on account of bogus purchases is ignoring that the information on account

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

5. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Id.CIT(A) has erred in restrict law, Id.CIT(A) has erred in restricting the quantum addition ing the quantum addition ignoring that the information on account of bogus purchases is ignoring that the information on account of bogus purchases is ignoring that the information on account

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

5,41,81,050/- in respect of th in respect of those 13 parties for assessment year se 13 parties for assessment year 2013-14 to 2020-21 as unexplained bogus purchases. 21 as unexplained bogus purchases. In the year 21 as unexplained bogus purchases. under consideration addition of Rs. 48, 04,750/ under consideration addition

PURNA PURSHOTTAM EXPORTS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 32(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 1616/MUM/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2023AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Purna Pushottam Exports, Ito-32(3)(5), Gala No. 329, Vardhman Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Pan No. Aaefp 8085 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 Purna Pushottam Exports, Acit Central Circle, 2(2), Gala No. 329, Vardhman Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Pan No. Aaefp 8085 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Adv. &For Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, DR

5 Purna Pushottam Exports exported and thus purchase and sales are having direct nexus. exported and thus purchase and sales are having direct nexus. exported and thus purchase and sales are having direct nexus. Whereas Whereas rough rough diamonds diamonds purchased pu were were sent sent to to manufacture/process manufacture/process into cut and polished diamonds and resultant

PURNA PURSHOTTAM EXPORTS ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE,2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 1618/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Purna Pushottam Exports, Ito-32(3)(5), Gala No. 329, Vardhman Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Pan No. Aaefp 8085 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 Purna Pushottam Exports, Acit Central Circle, 2(2), Gala No. 329, Vardhman Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Pan No. Aaefp 8085 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Adv. &For Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, DR

5 Purna Pushottam Exports exported and thus purchase and sales are having direct nexus. exported and thus purchase and sales are having direct nexus. exported and thus purchase and sales are having direct nexus. Whereas Whereas rough rough diamonds diamonds purchased pu were were sent sent to to manufacture/process manufacture/process into cut and polished diamonds and resultant