BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

1 result for “bogus purchases”+ Revision u/s 263clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi77Mumbai64Jaipur45Kolkata43Rajkot30Ahmedabad30Bangalore28Chandigarh23Chennai23Agra19Indore18Lucknow14Surat14Pune9Nagpur8Raipur8Amritsar4Jodhpur3Patna3Guwahati3Ranchi2Dehradun2Hyderabad2Jabalpur1Cuttack1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)2Section 1322Section 133A2

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 2026AY 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 246A
Section 250
Section 253
Section 253(2)

263 ITR 101 (Ker)], ‘CIT Vs Dhingra Metal Works’ [2010, 328 ITR 384 (Del)], and ‘CIT Vs S Khader Khan Son’ [2012, 210 Taxman 248 (SC)], following which hon’ble courts rejected the Revenues claim for making addition solitarily on the basis of statement, such for instance are; ‘CIT Vs P. Balasubramanian’ [2013, 354 ITR 116 (Mad)], ‘CIT Vs Ibis