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.

17 results for “bogus purchases”+ Exemptionclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai796Delhi344Jaipur153Kolkata137Ahmedabad132Indore74Bangalore60Chennai59Cochin57Hyderabad57Chandigarh55Pune48Lucknow34Rajkot33Raipur32Guwahati28Surat26Nagpur24Ranchi17Patna17Cuttack16Amritsar11Jodhpur11Agra10Visakhapatnam9Varanasi5Dehradun2Panaji1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Addition to Income16Section 14715Section 153A15Section 14813Section 25011Survey u/s 133A10Search & Seizure7Capital Gains7Reopening of Assessment

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR, MUZAFFARPUR vs. RAJESH KUMAR AGARWAL HUF, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue as well as that of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 301/PAT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Md. AH Chowdhary, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147

bogus commission income. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Patna erred in not considering the observation of the Special Auditor, in which he reported that no conclusive evidence regarding exempted sale, exempted purchase

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR, MUZAFFARPUR vs. RAJESH KUMAR AGARWAL HUF, MUZAFFARPUR

7
Section 1325
Section 132(4)5
Section 133A5

In the result, the appeals of the revenue as well as that of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 291/PAT/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vp & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Md. AH Chowdhary, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147

bogus commission income. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Patna erred in not considering the observation of the Special Auditor, in which he reported that no conclusive evidence regarding exempted sale, exempted purchase

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), MUZAFFARPUR, MUZAFFARPUR vs. RAJESH KUMAR AGARWAL HUF, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue as well as that of the\nassessee are dismissed

ITA 290/PAT/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Feb 2026AY 2022-23
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147

bogus\ncommission income.\n3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.\nCIT(A)-3, Patna erred in not considering the observation of the Special Auditor, in\nwhich he reported that no conclusive evidence regarding exempted sale, exempted\npurchase, commission income and expenses shown in the profit and loss account of\nM/s

RAJESH KUMAR AGARWAL HUF,MUZAFFARPUR vs. AC/DCIT CENT CIR MZF, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue as well as that of the\nassessee are dismissed

ITA 302/PAT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Feb 2026AY 2021-22
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147

bogus\ncommission income.\n3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.\nCIT(A)-3, Patna erred in not considering the observation of the Special Auditor, in\nwhich he reported that no conclusive evidence regarding exempted sale, exempted\npurchase, commission income and expenses shown in the profit and loss account of\nM/s

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), MUZAFFARPUR vs. RAJESH KUMAR AGARWAL HUF, MUZAFFARPUR

In the result, the appeals of the revenue as well as that of the\nassessee are dismissed

ITA 289/PAT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Patna18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147

bogus\ncommission income.\n3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.\nCIT(A)-3, Patna erred in not considering the observation of the Special Auditor, in\nwhich he reported that no conclusive evidence regarding exempted sale, exempted\npurchase, commission income and expenses shown in the profit and loss account of\nM/s

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATNA vs. SUSHILA SULTANIA, PATNA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 475/PAT/2024[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Patna26 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.475/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Circle-4, Patna……..........................…...........................……….……Appellant Vs. Sushila Sultania, Patna……….............…..….…...……........……...…..…..Respondent 503, Venkatesh Apartment, Dakbunglow Road, Budh Marg, Patna, Bihar-800001. [Pan: Acmps5390M] Appearances By: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Neelkhanth Kandelwal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 14, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 26 , 2025 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Against The Order Dated 21.05.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Only Issue Raised By The Revenue In This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,84,74,698/- & Rs.8,79,748/- As Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 68 R.W.S. 115Bbe & U/S 69C Respectively. 3. Facts In Brief Are That The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 By Issuing Notice U/S 148 Of The Act On 31.03.2021. The Said Notice Was Duly Complied By The Assessee By Filing Return Of Income On 22.04.2021 Declaring Total Income At Rs.19,11,200/-. The Assessing

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

exempt. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer without doing any enquiry or pointing out any defect or discrepancy in the documents before him but only based on the investigation report stated that there was a big racket operating in the country in sale and purchase of shares thereby generating bogus

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. M/S AL-KARIM EDUCATIONAL TRUST, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue i

ITA 68/PAT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 67 & 68/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Vs. M/S. A1-Karim Educational Trust Katihar Lane, Bailey Road, Khajpura Patna-800014 (Pan: Aaatm6309G) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT D/R
Section 250

bogus claim for exemption U/s. 10(23C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A letter for cancellation of registration for exemption has been written by the concerned Assessing Officer, Central Circle - 2, Patna to the Principle Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar & Jharkhand (copy enclosed for kind reference).” This part of the remand report relating to the AI-Karim Educational

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. M/S AL-KARIM EDUCATIONAL TRUST, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue i

ITA 67/PAT/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 67 & 68/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Vs. M/S. A1-Karim Educational Trust Katihar Lane, Bailey Road, Khajpura Patna-800014 (Pan: Aaatm6309G) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT D/R
Section 250

bogus claim for exemption U/s. 10(23C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A letter for cancellation of registration for exemption has been written by the concerned Assessing Officer, Central Circle - 2, Patna to the Principle Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar & Jharkhand (copy enclosed for kind reference).” This part of the remand report relating to the AI-Karim Educational

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. NUZHAT NASREEN, L/H AHMAD ASHFAQUEKARIM OF NUZHAT NASREEN, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue i

ITA 69/PAT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 67 & 68/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Vs. M/S. A1-Karim Educational Trust Katihar Lane, Bailey Road, Khajpura Patna-800014 (Pan: Aaatm6309G) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT D/R
Section 250

bogus claim for exemption U/s. 10(23C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A letter for cancellation of registration for exemption has been written by the concerned Assessing Officer, Central Circle - 2, Patna to the Principle Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar & Jharkhand (copy enclosed for kind reference).” This part of the remand report relating to the AI-Karim Educational

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. AHMAD ASHFAQUE KARIM, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue i

ITA 70/PAT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 67 & 68/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Vs. M/S. A1-Karim Educational Trust Katihar Lane, Bailey Road, Khajpura Patna-800014 (Pan: Aaatm6309G) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT D/R
Section 250

bogus claim for exemption U/s. 10(23C) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A letter for cancellation of registration for exemption has been written by the concerned Assessing Officer, Central Circle - 2, Patna to the Principle Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bihar & Jharkhand (copy enclosed for kind reference).” This part of the remand report relating to the AI-Karim Educational

SUNITA AGRAWAL,KOLKATA vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed on this issue

ITA 148/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 38Section 68

exempt u/s. 38 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The reply of the assessee did not find favour with the AO. After discussing the modus operandi of money laundering by way of purchase and sale of penny stock, the AO has concluded that since there were bogus

SANGEETA GOEL,PATNA vs. CCIT, NFAC, PATNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 211/PAT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna12 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 211/Pat/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sangeeta Goel Chief Commissioner Of Income-Tax/Nfac 506, Santosha Complex Vs Fraser Road Bander Bagicha Patna - 800001 [Pan: Acbpg0887A] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Jcit D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/03/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per, Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 30/11/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. A. That The Initiation Of Proceeding U/S 147 R.W.S 148 Of The It Act, 1961 Based On Alleged Information Of Bogus Trade Amounting To Rs. 35,09,213/- In The Shares & Securities Of M/S Ayaan Commercial Pvt Ltd Being Bereft Of Fact & Assessee Having Not Carried On Any Such Transaction, The Assumption Of Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The It Act, 1961 Is Bad In Law. B. That The Ld. A.O. Having Rejected The Objection Of The Assessee Although These Facts Are Brought On Record His Action In Doing So Is Bad In Law. C. That The Reopening U/S 147 Was Based On Mere Suspicion & Surmises, The Proceeding U/S 147 R.W.S. 148 Of The It Act, 1961 Is Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, JCIT D/R
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) taking a legal ground challenging the initiation of proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act but failed to succeed as ld. CIT(A) was of the view that the assessee had claimed long term capital gain in her return of income and Assessing Officer

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 183/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

purchased shares via private placement from a company that later amalgamated with another listed company on Bombay Stock Exchange - After amalgamation, share prices rose sharply due to speculative activities - Based on findings from Investigation Wing which identified listed company as a bogus penny stock, Assessing Officer added assessee's Long-Term Capital Gains as undisclosed income under section 68 - Commissioner

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 181/PAT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

purchased shares via private placement from a company that later amalgamated with another listed company on Bombay Stock Exchange - After amalgamation, share prices rose sharply due to speculative activities - Based on findings from Investigation Wing which identified listed company as a bogus penny stock, Assessing Officer added assessee's Long-Term Capital Gains as undisclosed income under section 68 - Commissioner

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 182/PAT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

purchased shares via private placement from a company that later amalgamated with another listed company on Bombay Stock Exchange - After amalgamation, share prices rose sharply due to speculative activities - Based on findings from Investigation Wing which identified listed company as a bogus penny stock, Assessing Officer added assessee's Long-Term Capital Gains as undisclosed income under section 68 - Commissioner

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 180/PAT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

purchased shares via private placement from a company that later amalgamated with another listed company on Bombay Stock Exchange - After amalgamation, share prices rose sharply due to speculative activities - Based on findings from Investigation Wing which identified listed company as a bogus penny stock, Assessing Officer added assessee's Long-Term Capital Gains as undisclosed income under section 68 - Commissioner

AMAR KASERA (HUF),PATNA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, PATNA

In the result, all the captioned appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 179/PAT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Patna29 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

purchased shares via private placement from a company that later amalgamated with another listed company on Bombay Stock Exchange - After amalgamation, share prices rose sharply due to speculative activities - Based on findings from Investigation Wing which identified listed company as a bogus penny stock, Assessing Officer added assessee's Long-Term Capital Gains as undisclosed income under section 68 - Commissioner