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.

117 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 7clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,528Delhi2,726Kolkata928Jaipur637Ahmedabad627Chennai565Surat451Pune410Bangalore382Chandigarh282Hyderabad241Indore215Raipur171Rajkot138Karnataka127Amritsar120Nagpur117Visakhapatnam87Lucknow78Cuttack67Guwahati67Cochin66Agra51Calcutta51Jodhpur43Patna39Allahabad35Ranchi28Telangana19Dehradun18Jabalpur13Varanasi8SC7Panaji5Gauhati2Orissa2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)87Addition to Income74Section 6861Section 14847Section 14740Section 153A39Disallowance31Section 26327Section 80I23

ACIT, CIRCLE- 3, NAGPUR vs. M/S SOLARIES HOLDING LTD.,, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 509/NAG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2008-2009 The Acit Vs. M/S. Solaries Holdings Ltd. Circle-3, Thapar House, 124, Nagpur Janpath, New Delhi Panno.:Aahcs 59040 B Appellant Respondent Revenue By :Shripiyushkolhe (Cit-Dr) Assessee By: Shri K.P. Dewani (Adv.) Date Of Hearing: 18/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Department Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit-Ii, Nagpur Dated 01/09/2014 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2008-09 Wherein The Department Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani (Adv.)For Respondent: ShriPiyushKolhe (CIT-DR)
Section 133A(1)(ia)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

7 ACIT, Circle-3, Nagpur vs M/s. Solaries Holdings Ltd. Finally, the AO treated a sum of Rs.23,24,50,899/- as income from other sources and made the addition of Rs.23,24,50,899/- in the hands of the assessee company. 2.1 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted both the additions of Rs.23

Showing 1–20 of 117 · Page 1 of 6

Section 25022
Search & Seizure21
Bogus Purchases18

SHETKARI SOLVENT (INDIA) LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT C.C. 1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 137/NAG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.137/Nag/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007–08 Shetkari Solvent (India) Ltd., Ug–7&8, Jagat Chambers, Near Ambedkar Sqr, Central Avenue, Bagadganj, Nagpur–440008. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aabcs0105N बनाम / V/S. Acit, Central Circle–1(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Nagpur. Assessee By : Shri Abhay Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Shri U. U. Kasar, Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Nagpur Dated 11.01.2012 For The Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Revised Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :– “1. That The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.5,79,60,000 On Account Of Alleged Bogus Purchases Of Soya Doc

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri U. U. Kasar, DR
Section 139Section 153C

7 the Assessing Officer in connection with the evidences gathered by him against the assessee. Before us, the assessee filed a written submission and the same are extracted hereunder :- “1. The learned AO erred in disallowing the entire purchases of Poha Bhusa and Soya DOC purchased from specified parties amounting to Rs.8,06,65,900. The learned AO erred

M/S SHREE SAIBABA CONSTRUCTION,,NAGPUR vs. CIT-IV,, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 292/NAG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Jun 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)

bogus and non–genuine purchases. 3. Meanwhile, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax invoked his powers under section 263 of the Act, called for the assessment records of the assessee for the impugned assessment year and after scrutinizing the same, was of the view that the assessment order 3 M/s. Shree Saibaba Construction passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous

VGI MARKETING DIVISION,AKOLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, AKOLA

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 309/NAG/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Shubham JainFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 133(6)Section 263Section 69C

7. Judgment of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Batliboi Environmental Engineering Ltd 8. Judgment of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. S.V. Jiwani 9. Judgment of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, 15, Mumbai v. Jakharia Fabric (P.) Ltd.” 4. The learned Departmental Representative, at the outset, invited our attention to Para–7.2.1 to 7.7 of the impugned order passed

SUNRISE STRUCTURALS & ENGINEERING PVT LTD,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT/ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4 NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 167/NAG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Apr 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roysunrise Structural & Acit/Dcit, Circle-4, Engineering P. Ltd., A10, Vs Nagpur Hingna Midc, Nagpur (Urban), Nagpur-440016 Pan : Aaccs 3220 M Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.04.2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234BSection 250Section 69C

purchase made by assessee is from bogus party and therefore it was correctly disallowed in the assessment framed by invoking the provisions of section 69C of the Act. It was submitted that there is no merit in the appeal filed by assessee and therefore addition made by the Ld. AO be sustained and upheld. He further submitted that assessee

SUBHASH BADRIPRASAD SHAHU,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(3), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesee is partly allowed

ITA 421/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur07 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesubhash Badriprasad Shahu, Plot No.84, Near Annapurna Dall Mill, Bagad Ganj, Small Factory Area ……………. Appellant Nagpur 440 008. Maharashtra. Pan – Agqps9660N V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–4(3), Nagpur Assessee By :Shri. Abhay Agrawal.A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri. Abhay Agrawal.A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

section 133(6) of the Act issued by the Assessing Officer at page 6 to 14 of the paper book. The contentions of the Ld.AR are realistic and duly supported by the material evidence and judicial decisions on the estimation of profit element. Hence considering the vat component embed in the transactions, facts and judicial decisions and to meet

M/S SHREE PALSIDDHA CONSTRUCTION,BULDHANA vs. PRINCIPAL C.I.T. -1,, NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 194/NAG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Shree Palsiddha Construction Vs. Pr.Cit-1, Sakharkheda, Nagpur. Taluka Sindhkhedraja, Buldhana-443202. Pan No.: Ablfs 9009 H Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal (Ca) Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Pr.Cit-1, Nagpur Dated 08/03/2017 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act) For The A.Y. 2009-10 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Pcit Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S 263 & Thereby Setting Aside Order Passed By Assessing Officer 2. Assessee Craves Leave To Add & Alter Any Other Ground That May Be Taken At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Civil Contractor. Return Of Income Was Filed On 03/12/2009 Declaring Total Income Of 2

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir Atal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

bogus purchases should be restricted only to gross profit, have been widely taken by the Judiciary across India. For sake of easy reference, we have enclosed the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Mohommad Haji Adam & Co (BOM)(HC) dated addition was restricted-to the Gross profit. 11/02/2019, where the (Said judgment

ZIM LABORATORIES LIMITED ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 116/NAG/2018[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Jan 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 153Section 153A

bogus purchases of capital goods without going into the merits of the case. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that during assessment u/s 153 A r.w.s. 143(3), it was not open to the AO to make additions without existence of any incriminating documents found and seized

ZIM LABORATORIES LIMITED ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 117/NAG/2018[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Jan 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 153Section 153A

bogus purchases of capital goods without going into the merits of the case. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that during assessment u/s 153 A r.w.s. 143(3), it was not open to the AO to make additions without existence of any incriminating documents found and seized

ZIM LABORATORIES LIMITED ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 118/NAG/2018[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur23 Jan 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh LoyaFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132(1)Section 143(1)Section 153Section 153A

bogus purchases of capital goods without going into the merits of the case. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that during assessment u/s 153 A r.w.s. 143(3), it was not open to the AO to make additions without existence of any incriminating documents found and seized

M/S UNIJULES LIFE SCIENCES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 223/NAG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur06 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 7

purchase of assets allegedly held bogus which is illegal, and which deserves to be deleted as per law. 7) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO grossly erred in making and the CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs. 194,04,18,971 representing disallowance of bad debts written off debited

M/S UNIJULES LIFE SCIENCES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 220/NAG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 7

purchase of assets allegedly held bogus which is illegal, and which deserves to be deleted as per law. 7) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO grossly erred in making and the CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs. 194,04,18,971 representing disallowance of bad debts written off debited

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(2), NAGPUR vs. VIDARBHA INFOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 76/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 44ASection 69C

purchases as bogus under section 69C." In the case of CIT v. Bhagwati Developers Pvt. Ltd. [2003] 261 ITR 658 (Cal.) it is held that if the source of the expenditure is explained section 69C has no applicability. It is also respectfully submitted that the addition u/s. 69C has been made merely on suspicion and conjectures without refuting any facts

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX EXEMPTION CIRCLE NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. VIDHARBHA BAHUUDESHIYA SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 789/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur19 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha Sr.DR
Section 12ASection 131Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148ASection 68Section 69C

purchase / bogus sale transactions with various entities controlled and managed by Shri Rajesh G. Mehta. During the course of recording of his statement on oath, Shri Rajesh G. Mehta also provided the details of entities controlled and managed by him and the company M/s. Aneri Fincap Ltd, was one of the entities controlled and managed by Shri Rajesh G. Mehta

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 411/NAG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 10(38)Section 68

bogus transactions and there is neither name of assessee nor name of the company “Parag Shilpa Infrastructure Ltd.” in the entire report. As per Para 4.6, the assessing officer stated that “the assessee has purchased the share of M/s. PSIT Infrastructure Ltd. for a very low price”. The assessee has actually not purchased PS IT Infrastructure shares, but assessee

NIKITA SHANKARLAL TANWANI,CHHINDWARA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 156/NAG/2021[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur08 Jun 2022AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ms. Nikita Shankar Lal Tanwani Vs. The Acit Near Shankar Mandir, Shankar Central Circle 2(1) Nagar, Pandhuna Pandhurna Nagpur Chhindwara – 480 334 (M.P.) Pan No.:Borpt 4644 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. & Shri Bhavesh Moryani, Adv Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 /6 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dated 8Th October 2021, Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [In Short “The Learned Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") For The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed On The Following Grounds:- 2. “1. The Passed Is Illegal, Invalid & Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. Moryani, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe (CIT-DR)
Section 115BSection 131Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 234ASection 250Section 44ASection 69A

purchase and sale transactions. Further, in case statements of CP were debatable, it was also recorded that Tribunal had not decided the ground of appeal that assessee had not filed certificate as per section 80HHC(4) and, therefore, was not eligible for deduction in the said section. Hence, matter remanded to Tribunal to examine all evidences in detail and decide

M/S UNIJULES LIFE SCIENCES LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 381/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 7

bogus being duly supported by third party evidences, the addition made by the AO without objectively and subjectively disproving the evidences so filed, and solely on the basis of statements recorded and information shared by officers other than the Assessing Officer, makes the addition grossly illegal and liable to be deleted as per law and in the interest of justice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. SHIKHA INDRAKUMAR AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 239/NAG/2023[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Apr 2026

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

For Appellant: Shri K.P. Dewani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

section 69C of the Act. 6 7. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that the assessee had furnished complete documentary evidences before the Assessing Officer in support of the purchase and sale of shares, including share allotment documents, demat account statements evidencing entry and exit of shares, contract notes issued by the registered stock broker, ledger account

ZIM LABORATORIES LIMITED ,NAGPUR vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 99/NAG/2018[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 May 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 99/Nag/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Zim Laboratories Ltd. Ground Floor, Sadodaya Gyan, Nelson Square, Opp. Nadt, Nagpur-440 013. Pan : Aaacz0200E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) Nagpur. ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Loya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Headoo, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)(iia)

7. We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home his contentions. In so far the observation of the Pr. CIT that the failure

M/S UNIJULES LIFE SCIENCES LTD,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 380/NAG/2024[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Nagpur12 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 7

purchase of assets allegedly held bogus which is illegal, and which deserves to be deleted as per law. 6) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO grossly erred in making and the CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs. 60,00,000 representing unaccounted income which is illegal, and which deserves