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.

106 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 142clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,351Delhi957Kolkata356Jaipur310Chennai171Chandigarh157Ahmedabad155Surat148Bangalore129Indore114Pune106Karnataka102Hyderabad86Rajkot84Raipur66Visakhapatnam60Cochin58Calcutta45Amritsar43Nagpur41Lucknow38Guwahati38Agra28Allahabad26Patna23Jodhpur21Ranchi16Cuttack14Varanasi7Jabalpur6SC4Telangana4Dehradun3Orissa2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Bombay1

Key Topics

Section 148121Section 143(3)88Section 14762Addition to Income51Section 143(2)47Section 6841Section 13237Section 10(38)32Section 133(6)29

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

ITA 933/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

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

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

SANJAY SHRAWAN AGRAWAL HUF,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2630/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune

Showing 1–20 of 106 · Page 1 of 6

Disallowance25
Search & Seizure24
Reopening of Assessment23
28 Mar 2018
AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

purchase is made under section 269UD reasons must be recorded in writing is no substitute for a provision requiring a reasonable opportunity of being heard before such an order is made." 20. Dealing with the question whether the requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing is to be read into section 142(2A), in Rajesh Kumar* it has been held

ANITA SANJAY AGRAWAL,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2623/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

purchase is made under section 269UD reasons must be recorded in writing is no substitute for a provision requiring a reasonable opportunity of being heard before such an order is made." 20. Dealing with the question whether the requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing is to be read into section 142(2A), in Rajesh Kumar* it has been held

TRIMURTI FURNANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2510/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

purchase is made under section 269UD reasons must be recorded in writing is no substitute for a provision requiring a reasonable opportunity of being heard before such an order is made." 20. Dealing with the question whether the requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing is to be read into section 142(2A), in Rajesh Kumar* it has been held

SANJAY SHRAWAN AGRAWAL HUF,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2629/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

purchase is made under section 269UD reasons must be recorded in writing is no substitute for a provision requiring a reasonable opportunity of being heard before such an order is made." 20. Dealing with the question whether the requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing is to be read into section 142(2A), in Rajesh Kumar* it has been held

SHRAWAN KESHAVLAL AGRAWAL HUF,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2626/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

purchase is made under section 269UD reasons must be recorded in writing is no substitute for a provision requiring a reasonable opportunity of being heard before such an order is made." 20. Dealing with the question whether the requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing is to be read into section 142(2A), in Rajesh Kumar* it has been held

TRIMURTI FURNANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2512/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

purchase is made under section 269UD reasons must be recorded in writing is no substitute for a provision requiring a reasonable opportunity of being heard before such an order is made." 20. Dealing with the question whether the requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing is to be read into section 142(2A), in Rajesh Kumar* it has been held

ANITA SANJAY AGRAWAL,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2622/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

purchase is made under section 269UD reasons must be recorded in writing is no substitute for a provision requiring a reasonable opportunity of being heard before such an order is made." 20. Dealing with the question whether the requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing is to be read into section 142(2A), in Rajesh Kumar* it has been held

SHRAWAN KESHAVLAL AGRAWAL HUF,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2627/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

purchase is made under section 269UD reasons must be recorded in writing is no substitute for a provision requiring a reasonable opportunity of being heard before such an order is made." 20. Dealing with the question whether the requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing is to be read into section 142(2A), in Rajesh Kumar* it has been held

TRIMURTI FURNANCE PRIVATE LIMITED,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2511/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

purchase is made under section 269UD reasons must be recorded in writing is no substitute for a provision requiring a reasonable opportunity of being heard before such an order is made." 20. Dealing with the question whether the requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing is to be read into section 142(2A), in Rajesh Kumar* it has been held

SHRAWAN KESHAVLAL AGRAWAL HUF,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2625/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

purchase is made under section 269UD reasons must be recorded in writing is no substitute for a provision requiring a reasonable opportunity of being heard before such an order is made." 20. Dealing with the question whether the requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing is to be read into section 142(2A), in Rajesh Kumar* it has been held

SANJAY SHRAWAN AGRAWAL HUF,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2628/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

purchase is made under section 269UD reasons must be recorded in writing is no substitute for a provision requiring a reasonable opportunity of being heard before such an order is made." 20. Dealing with the question whether the requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing is to be read into section 142(2A), in Rajesh Kumar* it has been held

ANITA SANJAY AGRAWAL,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2624/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

purchase is made under section 269UD reasons must be recorded in writing is no substitute for a provision requiring a reasonable opportunity of being heard before such an order is made." 20. Dealing with the question whether the requirement of affording an opportunity of hearing is to be read into section 142(2A), in Rajesh Kumar* it has been held

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

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)

142(1) of the Act 2 were issued and served on the assessee in response to which the AR of the assessee filed the requisite details from time to time. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer observed that the DDIT(Inv) in the appraisal report had stated that information was received from the GST Department regarding

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

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 134/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No 134/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kolhapur. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Rds Construction Co., 233/3, Malati Towers, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur. Pin-416 001 Pan : Aabfr4457M ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ajay ModiFor Respondent: Shri Nikhil Pathak
Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153A

142 to 145/PUN/2016 for assessment year 2007-08 to 2010-11 and ITA No.146 & 147/PUN/2016 for assessment year 2011-12 & 2012-13, order dated on 17.01.2018 wherein contents of the statement of Mr. Shinde were also noted in which there was no mention of purchases from M/s. Manvir Metal Pvt. Ltd. not any clear cut admission of said purchases being

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHAPUR vs. NATHMAL RUPCHAND JAIN, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1295/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P BoraFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 69A

bogus purchase entries from M/s. Rishabh Trading Company, which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC had admitted therefore, without appreciating the facts properly the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC was not justified in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC be reversed and that of the Assessing

SANJAY POPATLAL BEDMUTHA,,MANMAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2595/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 148

Section of Sales Tax Department, AO issued notice u/s.148 of the Act to the assessee. AO found that assessee made purchases from couple of suppliers namely, Eleven Impex and Omkar Trading Company amounting to Rs.5,55,152/-. Eventually, the AO added entire bogus purchases to the total income of the assessee and determined the income at Rs.12

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANVEL CIRCLE PANVEL vs. OUTABOX MEDIA SOLUTIONS LLP, GHATKOPAR MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 177/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Gunjan H KakkadFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

Section 142 (1). 2. In the present case, the facts did not warrant the order made by the High Court. At the same time, this Court notices that the High Court had granted liberty to the concerned authority to issue appropriate notice. 3. It is clarified, therefore, that the assessing officer is free to complete the assessment (in case

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

section 68 and 69C of the Act. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, when the appellate authority has categorically found that the alleged purchases are bogus in nature, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in restricting the profit margin to 12.5%. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any grounds