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.

47 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 69Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi114Jaipur92Mumbai47Chandigarh42Chennai26Bangalore25Hyderabad17Agra15Rajkot12Ahmedabad12Kolkata10Pune9Indore7Visakhapatnam5Jodhpur3Jabalpur2Lucknow2Raipur2Surat2Guwahati1Cochin1Dehradun1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 69A46Addition to Income40Section 143(3)28Section 6820Section 153A20Bogus Purchases17Natural Justice13Disallowance13Section 25012

HEMAL MAGANLAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A) NFAC, DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 285/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalhemal Maganlal Shah 84, 4Th Floor, Pankaj-B, Lbs Road, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086. Pan: Amfps8271G ...... Appellant Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. H.M. Shah Respondent By : Sh. Prasoon Kabra Date Of Hearing : 17/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 10/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. H.M. ShahFor Respondent: Sh. Prasoon Kabra
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)Section 274Section 69C

bogus and penalty under section 271(1)(c) was also imposed. Held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was specific on account of unverifiable purchases on which gross profit at 25 per cent was applied and added in the income. The assessee has not been able to produce these parties for verification and also summons was returned back

Showing 1–20 of 47 · Page 1 of 3

Section 5412
Section 14811
Section 69C11

DY CIT CC 7 (2), MUMBAI vs. M/S MAN GLOBAL LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and cross objections of the assessee in CO Nos

ITA 7440/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Sri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7440/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2011-12) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7533/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7534/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7535/Mum/2019 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2014-15) आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 7536/Mum/2019 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2015-16)

bogus purchase 7 Total receipt as 6489 per letter dated 31/03/2015 8 Less Receipt of 2500 JCM Group i.e. Man Infraprojects Limited 9 Total receipt of 3990 RCM Group 23. The A.O. has worked out total receipts on the basis of said alleged “Excel Sheet” which is extracted as under for ready reference: Rs. In lacs Sr Name

KAMAL VYAS ,MUMBAI vs. PR. CIT - 17, MUMBAI

In the result, this appeal stand allowed

ITA 303/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jan 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 263

bogus accommodation entries.” 6. Thereafter, learned PCIT referred to certain case laws in this regard. He further observed as under :- “4. There is another aspect of the matter. Further, as per section 115BBE of the Act, income tax shall be calculated at 60% where the total income of assessee includes following income: a) Income referred to in Section 68, Section

MRS. SUPREET KAUR NAGI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 20, MUMBAI

In the result ground number 9 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 5940/MUM/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh Dadia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 69A

69B of the Act. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the learned Assessing Officer. 57. Similarly, on the backside of the same paper there is a mentioned of fixed deposit amounting to ₹10,05,000/- and the learned Assessing Officer also made the addition of the same which was also confirmed by the learned CIT (A). ITA no.6835

MRS. SUPREET KAUR NAGI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 20, MUMBAI

In the result ground number 9 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 5941/MUM/2019[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh Dadia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 69A

69B of the Act. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the learned Assessing Officer. 57. Similarly, on the backside of the same paper there is a mentioned of fixed deposit amounting to ₹10,05,000/- and the learned Assessing Officer also made the addition of the same which was also confirmed by the learned CIT (A). ITA no.6835

MRS. SPUREET KAUR NAGI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-20, MUMBAI

In the result ground number 9 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 6458/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh Dadia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 69A

69B of the Act. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the learned Assessing Officer. 57. Similarly, on the backside of the same paper there is a mentioned of fixed deposit amounting to ₹10,05,000/- and the learned Assessing Officer also made the addition of the same which was also confirmed by the learned CIT (A). ITA no.6835

MRS. SPUREET NAGI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-20,, MUMBAI

In the result ground number 9 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 5944/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh Dadia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 69A

69B of the Act. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the learned Assessing Officer. 57. Similarly, on the backside of the same paper there is a mentioned of fixed deposit amounting to ₹10,05,000/- and the learned Assessing Officer also made the addition of the same which was also confirmed by the learned CIT (A). ITA no.6835

MRS. SPUREET NAGI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-20,, MUMBAI

In the result ground number 9 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 5943/MUM/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh Dadia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 69A

69B of the Act. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the learned Assessing Officer. 57. Similarly, on the backside of the same paper there is a mentioned of fixed deposit amounting to ₹10,05,000/- and the learned Assessing Officer also made the addition of the same which was also confirmed by the learned CIT (A). ITA no.6835

MRS. SPUREET NAGI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC-20, , MUMBAI

In the result ground number 9 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 5942/MUM/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh Dadia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 69A

69B of the Act. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the learned Assessing Officer. 57. Similarly, on the backside of the same paper there is a mentioned of fixed deposit amounting to ₹10,05,000/- and the learned Assessing Officer also made the addition of the same which was also confirmed by the learned CIT (A). ITA no.6835

MRS. SPUREET KAUR NAGI,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CC 20, MUMBAI

In the result ground number 9 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 6835/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jayesh Dadia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shekhar L. Gajbhiye, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 69A

69B of the Act. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the learned Assessing Officer. 57. Similarly, on the backside of the same paper there is a mentioned of fixed deposit amounting to ₹10,05,000/- and the learned Assessing Officer also made the addition of the same which was also confirmed by the learned CIT (A). ITA no.6835

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4) , MUMBAI vs. RONAK GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, Ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1497/MUM/2023[2020-221]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2024AY 2020-221

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyaldy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle- 2(4), Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Pratistha Bhawan, M.K. Road, Church Gate, Mumbai - 400 020. ...... Appellant Vs. M/S. Ronak Gems Pvt. Ltd., 311, Mehta Bhawan, Shop No. 5, Opp. Charni Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, Ld. DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

bogus by the Ld. AO without appreciating the fact that the purchases were genuine and evidenced by a plethora of documents and evidences. 2.2 Without prejudice to the above, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in not applying a fair and reasonable Gross Profit Ratio

M/S EVERFINE CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC-7(3), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3129/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

purchased by Patni group to infuse unaccounted money into Patni group concerns. The Ld. Counsel in this regard submits that the Assessing Officer himself is 29 ITA.NO. 3129/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2011-12) M/s. Everfine Constructions Pvt. Ltd., clear that the alleged investment has been done by the group and there is no specific mention of the assessee company. There is even

DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 4584/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

bogus is without any basis and devoid of any material on record. Only because the persons did not appear in pursuance of summons under section 131, the Assessing Officer cannot make the disallowance. 24.8.3 Further, it would not be out of place to mention that tax has been deducted at source on such payments, or credit, as the case

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 4586/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

bogus is without any basis and devoid of any material on record. Only because the persons did not appear in pursuance of summons under section 131, the Assessing Officer cannot make the disallowance. 24.8.3 Further, it would not be out of place to mention that tax has been deducted at source on such payments, or credit, as the case

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 3513/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

bogus is without any basis and devoid of any material on record. Only because the persons did not appear in pursuance of summons under section 131, the Assessing Officer cannot make the disallowance. 24.8.3 Further, it would not be out of place to mention that tax has been deducted at source on such payments, or credit, as the case

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 4588/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

bogus is without any basis and devoid of any material on record. Only because the persons did not appear in pursuance of summons under section 131, the Assessing Officer cannot make the disallowance. 24.8.3 Further, it would not be out of place to mention that tax has been deducted at source on such payments, or credit, as the case

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 3518/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

bogus is without any basis and devoid of any material on record. Only because the persons did not appear in pursuance of summons under section 131, the Assessing Officer cannot make the disallowance. 24.8.3 Further, it would not be out of place to mention that tax has been deducted at source on such payments, or credit, as the case

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 3514/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

bogus is without any basis and devoid of any material on record. Only because the persons did not appear in pursuance of summons under section 131, the Assessing Officer cannot make the disallowance. 24.8.3 Further, it would not be out of place to mention that tax has been deducted at source on such payments, or credit, as the case

GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 3517/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

bogus is without any basis and devoid of any material on record. Only because the persons did not appear in pursuance of summons under section 131, the Assessing Officer cannot make the disallowance. 24.8.3 Further, it would not be out of place to mention that tax has been deducted at source on such payments, or credit, as the case

ACIT 4(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. GOPALDAS VISRAM & CO. LTD, MUMBAI

Appeals are disposed off accordingly

ITA 4585/MUM/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev KhandelwalFor Respondent: Miss Vidisha Kalara
Section 69Section 69A

bogus is without any basis and devoid of any material on record. Only because the persons did not appear in pursuance of summons under section 131, the Assessing Officer cannot make the disallowance. 24.8.3 Further, it would not be out of place to mention that tax has been deducted at source on such payments, or credit, as the case