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.

6,136 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 5clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai6,136Delhi2,839Kolkata977Jaipur657Ahmedabad654Chennai567Surat462Pune419Bangalore379Chandigarh296Hyderabad233Indore207Raipur174Rajkot133Karnataka127Amritsar120Nagpur116Lucknow80Visakhapatnam75Guwahati75Cuttack70Cochin67Calcutta61Agra52Jodhpur49Allahabad35Patna34Ranchi29Telangana19Dehradun18Jabalpur14Varanasi8SC7Panaji5Orissa3Gauhati2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Punjab & Haryana1Bombay1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)96Addition to Income85Section 14770Section 14850Section 6841Section 69C40Bogus Purchases39Disallowance36Section 271(1)(c)33

WIND WORLD INDIA LIMITEAD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1470/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

5 grounds relate to the issue of additions made by the AO on account of bogus purchases, they are being taken up together for the sake of convenience. 7.1 It is noted that in course of the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that for the relevant year, the assessee has claimed purchases from alleged hawala/ bogus suppliers identified

Showing 1–20 of 6,136 · Page 1 of 307

...
Reopening of Assessment26
Section 143(1)24
Section 13224

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), MUMBAI vs. WIND WORLD INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1910/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

5 grounds relate to the issue of additions made by the AO on account of bogus purchases, they are being taken up together for the sake of convenience. 7.1 It is noted that in course of the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that for the relevant year, the assessee has claimed purchases from alleged hawala/ bogus suppliers identified

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3 (1), MUMBAI vs. WIND WORLD INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1352/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

5 grounds relate to the issue of additions made by the AO on account of bogus purchases, they are being taken up together for the sake of convenience. 7.1 It is noted that in course of the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that for the relevant year, the assessee has claimed purchases from alleged hawala/ bogus suppliers identified

DCIT - CC 3 (1), MUMBAI vs. WIND WORLD INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1355/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

5 grounds relate to the issue of additions made by the AO on account of bogus purchases, they are being taken up together for the sake of convenience. 7.1 It is noted that in course of the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that for the relevant year, the assessee has claimed purchases from alleged hawala/ bogus suppliers identified

WIND WORLD INDIA LIMITEAD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1469/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

5 grounds relate to the issue of additions made by the AO on account of bogus purchases, they are being taken up together for the sake of convenience. 7.1 It is noted that in course of the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that for the relevant year, the assessee has claimed purchases from alleged hawala/ bogus suppliers identified

DCIT - CC 3(1), MUMBAI vs. WIND WORLD INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1353/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

5 grounds relate to the issue of additions made by the AO on account of bogus purchases, they are being taken up together for the sake of convenience. 7.1 It is noted that in course of the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that for the relevant year, the assessee has claimed purchases from alleged hawala/ bogus suppliers identified

WIND WORLD INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1466/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

5 grounds relate to the issue of additions made by the AO on account of bogus purchases, they are being taken up together for the sake of convenience. 7.1 It is noted that in course of the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that for the relevant year, the assessee has claimed purchases from alleged hawala/ bogus suppliers identified

WIND WORLD INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1465/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

5 grounds relate to the issue of additions made by the AO on account of bogus purchases, they are being taken up together for the sake of convenience. 7.1 It is noted that in course of the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that for the relevant year, the assessee has claimed purchases from alleged hawala/ bogus suppliers identified

WIND WORLD INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1468/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

5 grounds relate to the issue of additions made by the AO on account of bogus purchases, they are being taken up together for the sake of convenience. 7.1 It is noted that in course of the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that for the relevant year, the assessee has claimed purchases from alleged hawala/ bogus suppliers identified

WIND WORLD INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1467/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

5 grounds relate to the issue of additions made by the AO on account of bogus purchases, they are being taken up together for the sake of convenience. 7.1 It is noted that in course of the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that for the relevant year, the assessee has claimed purchases from alleged hawala/ bogus suppliers identified

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), MUMBAI vs. WIND WORLD INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1354/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

5 grounds relate to the issue of additions made by the AO on account of bogus purchases, they are being taken up together for the sake of convenience. 7.1 It is noted that in course of the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that for the relevant year, the assessee has claimed purchases from alleged hawala/ bogus suppliers identified

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

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 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

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: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 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

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

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

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. 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