Search: bogus purchases | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases 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.

7 results for “bogus purchases”

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai9,060 Delhi3,259 Kolkata1,342 Chennai767 Ahmedabad739 Jaipur718 Pune636 Surat476 Bangalore432 Chandigarh344 Hyderabad279 Indore237 Raipur212 Rajkot150 Nagpur135 Amritsar129 Karnataka128 Visakhapatnam95 Lucknow92 Cuttack88 Guwahati79 Cochin73 Calcutta71 Agra63 Jodhpur59 Patna51 Ranchi40 Allahabad35 Dehradun25 Telangana24 Jabalpur15 Varanasi9 Panaji7 SC7 Orissa3 Gauhati2 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 Rajasthan1 Punjab & Haryana1 Bombay1

Key Topics

Addition to Income6 Section 133A5 Section 14A5 Section 143(3)4 Section 143(1)4 Section 143(2)4 Disallowance4 Section 2503 Survey u/s 133A3

HERALD PUBLICATIONS PVT. LTD.,PANAJI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1 (1), PANAJI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed as infructuous

ITA 26/PAN/2022[19902-91]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji05 Oct 2023

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri D.E. RobinsonFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

bogus purchases and unaccounted cash payments to the file of CIT(A) to pass fresh order, in accordance with law which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S MOHIT ISPAT LTD., KUNDAIM

Appeal of the Revenue is PARTLY ALLOWED in aforestated terms

ITA 9/PAN/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Feb 2026

Section 253(2)2

Section 139(1)2

AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S M/S Mohit Ispat Limited 339/340, Kundaim Industrial Estate, Goa-403115 Pan: Aaccm8154E . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: Mr Shriniwas Naik & Narchiva Lotlikar [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By: Mr Naveen Kumar [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 04/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Appeal Of The Revenue Instituted U/S 253(2) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Challenges Order Dt. 04/10/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals-2, Panaji Goa [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Sprung From Order Of Assessment Dt. 30/12/2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Acit, Central Circle, Panaji Goa [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2016-17.[‘Ay’]

For Appellant: Mr Shriniwas Naik & Narchiva Lotlikar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Naveen Kumar [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 253Section 253(2)

bogus purchases hence inapplicable. ITAT-Panaji Page 28 of 44 ACIT Vs M/s Mohit Ispat Limited ITA No. 009/PAN/2020 AY: 2016-17 24. The search

PRIME MINERAL EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW AMALGAMATED WITH FOMENTO RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED),PANAJI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 1, PANAJI

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purpose in aforestated terms

ITA 3/PAN/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji05 Jun 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 003/Pan/2023 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Prime Mineral Exports Pvt. Ltd. (Now Amalgamated With Fomento Resources Pvt. Ltd.) 102, 1St Fl. Kamat Metropolis-1, Behind Caculo Mall, St. Inez, Panaji, Goa-403001. . . . . . . .Appellant Pan : Aadcp1647E V/S Jt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . Respondent Range-1, Panaji, Goa

For Appellant: Mr Nishant Thakkar [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M. Satish [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 246ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 41(1)Section 4I

purchases as bogus or sham. The appellant’s failure to lay confirmation from MCTPL combined with insufficient documentary evidence to showcase

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2), BELAGAVI vs. SHRI GIRISH PRAKASH VERNEKAR, BELAGAVI

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue is dismissed and the cross objection by

ITA 227/PAN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Y. V. Raviraj

Section 133Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147

bogus purchases is sustainable. Hence, in this case we find that since no defect whatsoever has been found in the purchase

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI, PANAJI, GOA vs. BAGKIYA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD, GOA

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed in aforestated terms

ITA 148/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2017-2018 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S M/S Bagkiya Construction Pvt. Ltd. Sf-3, Building No.-3. Techno Cidade, Chogam Rd., Alto Porvorim, Goa-403521. Pan: Aaccb9382M . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: None For The Respondent Revenue By: Mr Senthil Kumar [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Revenue’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(2) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Challenges The Order Dt. 29/05/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals-2), Panaji [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Wheeled From The Order Dt. 25/08/2021 Passed U/S 147 Of The Act By Acit, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2017-18.[‘Ay’]

For Appellant: None for theFor Respondent: Mr Senthil Kumar [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 127(2)Section 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(2)

purchase confirmations and addresses of suppliers. Similarly in case of ‘Ramesh Haribhau Gawli Vs ITO [2024, 301 Taxman 407 (SC)] a SLP against the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High court dismissed where assessee, a civil work contractor, claimed to have spent certain amount on bogus

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI vs. M/S SOCIADADE DE FOMENTO INDUSTRIAL P. LTD, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 116/PAN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Sh. Nishant Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

purchase of shares of M/s. Sesa Goa Ltd., 24 ITA.No.105 & 116/PAN./2018 Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd., Margao, Goa. from the average investment and to re-work the disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of I.T. Rules. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the claim of assessee. 22. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before

SOCIEADADE DE FOMENTO INDL. PVT. LTD.,MARGAO vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MARGAO RANGE, MARGAO

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 105/PAN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji12 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Sh. Nishant Thakkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Ranjan Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14A

purchase of shares of M/s. Sesa Goa Ltd., 24 ITA.No.105 & 116/PAN./2018 Sociedade De Fomento Industrial Pvt. Ltd., Margao, Goa. from the average investment and to re-work the disallowance under section 14A r.w. Rule 8D of I.T. Rules. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the claim of assessee. 22. Still aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before