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.

50 results for “bogus purchases”+ Depreciationclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai901Delhi395Kolkata107Ahmedabad104Jaipur101Bangalore84Hyderabad63Amritsar57Chennai52Chandigarh51Pune50Raipur33Nagpur32Indore31Surat23Lucknow22Visakhapatnam12Guwahati12Rajkot10Jodhpur9Cuttack9Allahabad9Dehradun5Karnataka4Agra4SC3Panaji2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Patna1Varanasi1Cochin1

Key Topics

Section 133A43Addition to Income42Disallowance33Section 143(3)30Section 153A28Section 14824Section 271(1)(c)24Section 13220Section 132(4)20

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 951/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

bogus bills and offering equal amount for taxation, the same cannot be retracted as it constitutes `evidence’. In order to appreciate this contention, let us have a look at the mandate of sub-section (4) of section 132 which provides that : `The authorised officer may, during the course of 8 Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad the search or seizure, examine on oath

SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Showing 1–20 of 50 · Page 1 of 3

Depreciation18
Section 40A(3)17
Survey u/s 133A17

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 818/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

bogus bills and offering equal amount for taxation, the same cannot be retracted as it constitutes `evidence’. In order to appreciate this contention, let us have a look at the mandate of sub-section (4) of section 132 which provides that : `The authorised officer may, during the course of 8 Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad the search or seizure, examine on oath

SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 814/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

bogus bills and offering equal amount for taxation, the same cannot be retracted as it constitutes `evidence’. In order to appreciate this contention, let us have a look at the mandate of sub-section (4) of section 132 which provides that : `The authorised officer may, during the course of 8 Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad the search or seizure, examine on oath

SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 816/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

bogus bills and offering equal amount for taxation, the same cannot be retracted as it constitutes `evidence’. In order to appreciate this contention, let us have a look at the mandate of sub-section (4) of section 132 which provides that : `The authorised officer may, during the course of 8 Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad the search or seizure, examine on oath

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 953/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

bogus bills and offering equal amount for taxation, the same cannot be retracted as it constitutes `evidence’. In order to appreciate this contention, let us have a look at the mandate of sub-section (4) of section 132 which provides that : `The authorised officer may, during the course of 8 Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad the search or seizure, examine on oath

SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 815/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

bogus bills and offering equal amount for taxation, the same cannot be retracted as it constitutes `evidence’. In order to appreciate this contention, let us have a look at the mandate of sub-section (4) of section 132 which provides that : `The authorised officer may, during the course of 8 Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad the search or seizure, examine on oath

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 950/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Nov 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

bogus bills and offering equal amount for taxation, the same cannot be retracted as it constitutes `evidence’. In order to appreciate this contention, let us have a look at the mandate of sub-section (4) of section 132 which provides that : `The authorised officer may, during the course of 8 Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad the search or seizure, examine on oath

SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 817/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Nov 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

bogus bills and offering equal amount for taxation, the same cannot be retracted as it constitutes `evidence’. In order to appreciate this contention, let us have a look at the mandate of sub-section (4) of section 132 which provides that : `The authorised officer may, during the course of 8 Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad the search or seizure, examine on oath

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 952/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

bogus bills and offering equal amount for taxation, the same cannot be retracted as it constitutes `evidence’. In order to appreciate this contention, let us have a look at the mandate of sub-section (4) of section 132 which provides that : `The authorised officer may, during the course of 8 Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad the search or seizure, examine on oath

SHAHAJI BHANUDAS BHAD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 813/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 813 To 818/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2012-13

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

bogus bills and offering equal amount for taxation, the same cannot be retracted as it constitutes `evidence’. In order to appreciate this contention, let us have a look at the mandate of sub-section (4) of section 132 which provides that : `The authorised officer may, during the course of 8 Shahaji Bhanudas Bhad the search or seizure, examine on oath

SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 549/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Rajshekhar S. AbhyankarFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 35

Bogus purchases’. 8. in confirming disallowance of rent paid of Rs.31,44,000/- for bungalow located at 70, Koregaon Park, Pune taken on lease (belonging to M/s. Poonawalla Finvest & Agro Pvt. Ltd., ZSP Group Company) for office of Director of appellant company and depreciation

SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 550/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Rajshekhar S. AbhyankarFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 35

Bogus purchases’. 8. in confirming disallowance of rent paid of Rs.31,44,000/- for bungalow located at 70, Koregaon Park, Pune taken on lease (belonging to M/s. Poonawalla Finvest & Agro Pvt. Ltd., ZSP Group Company) for office of Director of appellant company and depreciation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 607/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Rajshekhar S. AbhyankarFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 35

Bogus purchases’. 8. in confirming disallowance of rent paid of Rs.31,44,000/- for bungalow located at 70, Koregaon Park, Pune taken on lease (belonging to M/s. Poonawalla Finvest & Agro Pvt. Ltd., ZSP Group Company) for office of Director of appellant company and depreciation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 934/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Rajshekhar S. AbhyankarFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 35

Bogus purchases’. 8. in confirming disallowance of rent paid of Rs.31,44,000/- for bungalow located at 70, Koregaon Park, Pune taken on lease (belonging to M/s. Poonawalla Finvest & Agro Pvt. Ltd., ZSP Group Company) for office of Director of appellant company and depreciation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SUBHASH LALASAHEB DESHMUKH,, OSMANABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1224/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

bogus purchase value at 15% and sustaining the addition pro tanto. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order on this issue. This ground fails. 7. Ground No.3 is against the deletion of addition on account of steel consumption. The AO observed that the assessee manufactured 2583 bullock carts during the year. Sale price of bullock cart was found to be ranging

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. RDS CONSTRUCTION CO.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2731/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2731 To 2733/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Kolhapur. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Rds Construction Co., 233/3, Malati Towers, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur-416003. Pan : Aabfr4457M ……""यथ" / Respondent Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Ghai Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Three Appeals Under Consideration. Ita Nos.2731 & 2732/Pun/2016 Filed By The Revenue Are Against The Common Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur Dated 26.09.2016 U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2010-11 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghai
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

bogus purchases are very much recorded in the books of account. 10.1 Considering the above, we are of the opinion, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer in both the appeals are unsustainable on legal issue. Therefore, we find the orders of the CIT(A) in both the years are fair and reasonable and they do not call

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. RDS CONSTRUCTION CO.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2733/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2731 To 2733/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Kolhapur. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Rds Construction Co., 233/3, Malati Towers, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur-416003. Pan : Aabfr4457M ……""यथ" / Respondent Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Ghai Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Three Appeals Under Consideration. Ita Nos.2731 & 2732/Pun/2016 Filed By The Revenue Are Against The Common Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur Dated 26.09.2016 U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2010-11 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghai
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

bogus purchases are very much recorded in the books of account. 10.1 Considering the above, we are of the opinion, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer in both the appeals are unsustainable on legal issue. Therefore, we find the orders of the CIT(A) in both the years are fair and reasonable and they do not call

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. RDS CONSTRUCTION CO.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2732/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2731 To 2733/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Kolhapur. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Rds Construction Co., 233/3, Malati Towers, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur-416003. Pan : Aabfr4457M ……""यथ" / Respondent Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Ghai Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Three Appeals Under Consideration. Ita Nos.2731 & 2732/Pun/2016 Filed By The Revenue Are Against The Common Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur Dated 26.09.2016 U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2010-11 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghai
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

bogus purchases are very much recorded in the books of account. 10.1 Considering the above, we are of the opinion, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer in both the appeals are unsustainable on legal issue. Therefore, we find the orders of the CIT(A) in both the years are fair and reasonable and they do not call

M/S. METALLURGICAL PRODUCTS (INDIA) PVT.LTD,,RAIGAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3,, RAIGAD

Accordingly, appeal of the assessee in assessment year 2011-12 is allowed for

ITA 145/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma
Section 10B

bogus purchases from hawala dealers viz. M/s. Shradha Trading Company and A.P. Enterprises aggregating to Rs.2,71,762/-. The assessee for the assessment year 2011-12 as well, had furnished all the documents in support of the purchases made by the assessee. However, Authorities below have failed to consider the same. The Assessing Officer made addition of the entire purchases

M/S. METALLURGICAL PRODUCTS (INDIA) PVT.LTD,,RAIGAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3,, RAIGAD

Accordingly, appeal of the assessee in assessment year 2011-12 is allowed for

ITA 146/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma
Section 10B

bogus purchases from hawala dealers viz. M/s. Shradha Trading Company and A.P. Enterprises aggregating to Rs.2,71,762/-. The assessee for the assessment year 2011-12 as well, had furnished all the documents in support of the purchases made by the assessee. However, Authorities below have failed to consider the same. The Assessing Officer made addition of the entire purchases