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.

46 results for “bogus purchases”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai815Delhi312Ahmedabad156Jaipur136Chennai65Bangalore63Surat59Rajkot57Kolkata56Hyderabad52Chandigarh50Pune46Raipur40Indore38Amritsar25Lucknow23Guwahati22Nagpur20Allahabad20Patna15Jodhpur12Dehradun5Visakhapatnam4Cuttack4Agra4Jabalpur1Ranchi1Cochin1Varanasi1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)62Section 143(3)38Section 14833Section 14726Section 10(38)25Addition to Income25Section 13224Section 143(2)21Section 133(6)20

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. METAROLLS ISPAT PVT. LTD., JALNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 932/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: S/Shri Adv Rahul Kaul, CA AnandFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR &
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

bogus purchases of Rs.13,80,63,994/- will meet the ends of justice. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to adopt the profit rate of 5% on the total purchases of Rs.13,80,63,994/- and restrict the addition to Rs.69,03,200/-. The order

Showing 1–20 of 46 · Page 1 of 3

Bogus Purchases17
Reopening of Assessment15
Penalty14

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, AURANGABAD vs. METAROLLS ISPAT PVT. LTD, JALNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

ITA 933/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Feb 2025AY 2021-22
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

bogus purchases of\nRs.13,80,63,994/- will meet the ends of justice. We, therefore, set aside the order\nof the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to adopt the profit rate of 5% on\nthe total purchases of Rs.13,80,63,994/- and restrict the addition to Rs.69,03,200/-.\nThe order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. RATHI STEEL AND METAL PVT. LTD, JALNA

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

ITA 931/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Dcit, Aurangabad Rathi Steel & Metal Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.F12, Addl Midc Area, Phase-Ii, Vs. Jalna – 431203 Pan : Aabcr5546A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anand Partani Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - Cit Date Of Hearing : 01-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Anand PartaniFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari - CIT
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(2)

penalty proceedings under clause b of subsection 1A of section 271AAB of the IT Act, 1961 are initiated herewith. (Addition Rs.17,42,770/-)” 6. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted both the additions made by the Assessing Officer. So far as the addition on account of bogus purchases

M/S SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT , CIRCLE- 5, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1867/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1864 To 1868/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa (Bk), Pune- 411048. Pan : Aaccs3670F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prayag Jha &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

bogus purchases as per their direction and the Ld Assessing Officer was not justified in passing fresh Assessment Order on 28.02.2024 and in initiating penalty

M/S SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT , CIRCLE- 5, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1866/PUN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1864 To 1868/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa (Bk), Pune- 411048. Pan : Aaccs3670F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prayag Jha &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

bogus purchases as per their direction and the Ld Assessing Officer was not justified in passing fresh Assessment Order on 28.02.2024 and in initiating penalty

M/S SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT. LTD. ,PUNE vs. DY CIT , CIRCLE- 5 , PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1868/PUN/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1864 To 1868/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa (Bk), Pune- 411048. Pan : Aaccs3670F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prayag Jha &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

bogus purchases as per their direction and the Ld Assessing Officer was not justified in passing fresh Assessment Order on 28.02.2024 and in initiating penalty

M/S SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT , CIRCLE- 5, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1865/PUN/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1864 To 1868/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa (Bk), Pune- 411048. Pan : Aaccs3670F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prayag Jha &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

bogus purchases as per their direction and the Ld Assessing Officer was not justified in passing fresh Assessment Order on 28.02.2024 and in initiating penalty

M/S SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT , CIRCLE- 5, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1864/PUN/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jan 2026AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1864 To 1868/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa (Bk), Pune- 411048. Pan : Aaccs3670F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prayag Jha &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare (Virtual)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

bogus purchases as per their direction and the Ld Assessing Officer was not justified in passing fresh Assessment Order on 28.02.2024 and in initiating penalty

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. ANIL JAIRAM GOEL, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2241/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 68

bogus purchases has set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh in the light of judgement passed by Hon’ble opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 12. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and without going into merits

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. ANIL JAIRAM GOEL, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 2239/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 68

bogus purchases has set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh in the light of judgement passed by Hon’ble opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 12. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and without going into merits

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. TAPARIA TOOLS LIMITED, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms indicated above

ITA 1337/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1337/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Amit BobdeFor Respondent: Shri Viral Shah
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 37(1)

bogus purchases amounting to Rs.87,64,74,079/-is being made u/s 37(1) of the Act, and added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE, PUNE vs. SHREE CHANAKYA EDUCATION SOCIETY, AUNDH, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2170/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: S/Shri Neelesh Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

purchases as bogus and that too u/s 68 of the Act. 26. We further find merit in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that when the assessee is registered u/s 12A and its application of income during the year is Rs.1,08,17,64,353/- as against income of Rs.102,37,86,355/-, there was no need

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE, PUNE vs. SHREE CHANAKYA EDUCATION SOCIETY, AUNDH ,PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2155/PUN/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Aug 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: S/Shri Neelesh Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

purchases as bogus and that too u/s 68 of the Act. 26. We further find merit in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that when the assessee is registered u/s 12A and its application of income during the year is Rs.1,08,17,64,353/- as against income of Rs.102,37,86,355/-, there was no need

DCIT-CIRCLE 7 PUNE, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK PUNE vs. TRIO CHEMSUCROTECH ENG. PROJECTS PVT. LTD, PUNE

ITA 1047/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)

purchases, bogus expenditure shown on civil works and bogus payment of commission. Hence the claim of this bogus expenditure is disallowed and accordingly an addition of Rs.24,23,92,146/ is made to the total income declared by the assessee. Penalty

M/S. M M BROTHERS,DHULE vs. ITO, WARD 1, DHULE, DHULE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 477/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. VazeFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale (Virtual)
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

bogus purchases and other additions of Rs.1,35,000/-. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 4. Subsequently

SHIV SHRADDHA DEVELOPER,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE -3 KALYAN , KALYAN

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 944/PUN/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.944/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Kumar ParidaFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. There is no finding by the AO as to which particulars furnished by the assessee are found to be inaccurate. Further, it is settled position of law that even in the case of bogus purchases

SHREEM ELECTRIC LIMITED,KOLHAPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 898/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.898/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2017-18 Shreem Electric Limited, V The Assistant Plot No.43 To 46, S Commissioner Of Income L.K.Akiwate Industrial Tax, Estate, Jaysingpur, Shirol, Central Circle, Kolhapur. Kolhapur – 416144. Pan: Aaccs4893C Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak -Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 31/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-11Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 31.01.2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Penalty Under Section 270A Of Rs.3,01,124/-. Shreem Electric Limited, Kolhapur[A] 2. The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That, Since The Addition Is Made On Adhoc Basis, No Penalty Can Be Levied. 3. The Penalty Levied May Please Be Delete. 4. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend Or Delete Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal.” 2. There Is A Delay Of Two Months Of Filing Appeal Before This Tribunal. Considering The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit, We Are Convinced With The Reasons For Delay & In The Larger Interest Of Justice, We Condone The Delay.

Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(6)

purchased from Radiance Multitrade Pvt. Ltd., Thus, AO has merely made an ad-hoc disallowance of depreciation. Though in the penalty order, it is alleged that there were bogus

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. CTR MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1006/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra AgiwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 271(1)(c)

purchases. The CIT(A) discussed the issue in detail and placing reliance on the decision, held that penalty cannot be levied in case where the addition is made on estimation basis. Admittedly, in the present case the addition was restricted by the ITAT @10% on alleged bogus

AMIT DHANOMAL HARYANI,KOLHAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR

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

ITA 1539/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 68

bogus purchases before the Ld. CIT(A) which is still pending for disposal to date. We observe that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order confirming the penalty

AADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 439/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

Penalty proceedings are separately initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) / NFAC challenging the validity of re-assessment proceedings as well as the addition on merits. However, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC was not satisfied with