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”+ Section 144Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai155Delhi102Ahmedabad64Jaipur41Rajkot40Kolkata36Chandigarh28Raipur19Indore19Surat18Pune17Hyderabad15Bangalore10Guwahati5Amritsar5Agra5Chennai4Lucknow4Visakhapatnam3Dehradun3Jodhpur2Ranchi2Cochin2Nagpur1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 14823Section 14718Section 143(3)14Section 148A13Section 1329Penny Stock8Addition to Income8Section 153A6Section 2506Section 263

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

ITA 1565/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya andFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

purchased by respondent on the floor of\nStock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries were taken,\ncontract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor of\nStock Exchange. The ITAT therefore, in our view, rightly concluded that\nthere was no merit in the appeal.\"\n\nThe facts of the case at hand are similar

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

6
Reopening of Assessment4
Natural Justice3
ITA 1555/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

purchased by respondent on the floor of\nStock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries were taken,\ncontract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor of\nStock Exchange. The ITAT therefore, in our view, rightly concluded that\nthere was no merit in the appeal.\"\nThe facts of the case at hand are similar

MR. GAURAV RAJENDRA MALU,JAYSINGPUR vs. PCIT, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1206/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: FixedITAT Pune05 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1206/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 263

bogus long term capital gain availed through a penny stock company namely Greencrest Financial Services Private Limited. Ld. AO observed that the assessee has also dealt in the very same scrip and has earned capital gain thereon. Accordingly, notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued followed by validly serving of notices u/s.143(2) of the Act. Assessee raised objections against

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

ITA 497/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

purchased by respondent on the floor of\nStock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries were taken,\ncontract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor of\nStock Exchange. The ITAT therefore, in our view, rightly concluded that\nthere was no merit in the appeal.\"\n\nThe facts of the case at hand are similar

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

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

ITA 1436/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani KumarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 148A

purchased and sold scripts at a price which are very less as compared to the market price on that particular day. During the FY 2014-15, M/s Kay Power and Paper Ltd. has made the transactions and booked the profit of Rs. 2,67,66,250/-. During the F.Y 2014-15, M/s Kay Power and Paper Ltd has made such

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

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

ITA 1437/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani KumarFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 148A

purchased and sold scripts at a price which are very less as compared to the market price on that particular day. During the FY 2014-15, M/s Kay Power and Paper Ltd. has made the transactions and booked the profit of Rs. 2,67,66,250/-. During the F.Y 2014-15, M/s Kay Power and Paper Ltd has made such

VIDYARTHI VIKAS PRATISHTHAN JALGAON,JALGAON vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT (NFAC), DELHI

ITA 1194/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1194/Pun/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Vidyarthi Vikas Pratishthan Assessment Unit, Income Jalgaon, V Tax Department(Nfac) Gat No.148, Yashwant Nagar, S Ramanand Nagar, Maharashtra – 425001. Pan: Aaatv6624R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Hari Krishnan – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 01/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 02/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21 Passed On 20.09.2023 Emanating From Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 20.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Dismissing The Grounds Of Appeal Filed Before Him By The Assessee & In Vidyarthi Vikas Pratishthan Jalgaon[A]

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57

144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 20.09.2022. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the grounds of appeal filed before him by the assessee and in Vidyarthi Vikas Pratishthan Jalgaon[A] confirming the arbitrary and adhoc disallowance of Rs.53,56,317/- being the 50% of expenditure claimed

DATTATRAY HANMANTRAO DESAI,KARAD vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

ITA 1240/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ashok B NawalFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

144B of the Act is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. He, therefore, partly set aside the order of the Assessing Officer for the limited purpose of examining the transaction involving unsecured loans and other financial transactions. He further directed the Assessing Officer to specifically examine the following aspects: i) The AO shall

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

purchases amounting to Rs.16,70,12,650/-; (ii) addition towards unsecured loans u/s 68 amounting to Rs.12,49,500/-; (iii) disallowance of carriage outward expenses amounting to Rs.3,86,322/- and (iv) disallowance of interest expenses amounting to Rs.10,740/-. Penalty proceedings were thereafter initiated by issue of show cause notice dated 23.12.2022 which was duly served upon the assessee

RAISONI BAGRECHA DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. PNE-C-(25)(1), CIRCLE 1, JALGAON, JALGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2548/PUN/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2548 & 2550/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Raisoni Bagrecha Diamonds Pne-C-(25)(1), Pvt. Ltd. 288, Baliram Peth, Circle-1, Jalgaon Jalgaon-425001, Maharashtra Vs. Pan : Aadcr 7439 N अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanjay T. Tupe, Ca Department By : : Smt. Indira R. Adakil –Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 04-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-01-2026 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Separate Order(S) Both Dated 14.08.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay T. Tupe, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Indira R. Adakil –Addl. CIT
Section 145ASection 69

purchases and Rs. 2,55,498/- as alleged suppressed sales, without properly appreciating the documentary evidence, accounting principles, and provisions of Section 145A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. GROUND NO. 4: GROSS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly violated the principles of natural Justice by deliberately not intimating the defect in Form

RAISONI BAGRECHA DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. PNE-C-(25)(1), CIRCLE 1, JALGAON, JALGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2550/PUN/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2548 & 2550/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Raisoni Bagrecha Diamonds Pne-C-(25)(1), Pvt. Ltd. 288, Baliram Peth, Circle-1, Jalgaon Jalgaon-425001, Maharashtra Vs. Pan : Aadcr 7439 N अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanjay T. Tupe, Ca Department By : : Smt. Indira R. Adakil –Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 04-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-01-2026 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Separate Order(S) Both Dated 14.08.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay T. Tupe, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Indira R. Adakil –Addl. CIT
Section 145ASection 69

purchases and Rs. 2,55,498/- as alleged suppressed sales, without properly appreciating the documentary evidence, accounting principles, and provisions of Section 145A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. GROUND NO. 4: GROSS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly violated the principles of natural Justice by deliberately not intimating the defect in Form

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

ITA 1560/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya and Tushar NagoriFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

144B dt 28/09/2021 is certainly bad in law, being passed on basis of said illegal notice 148 and proceedings u/s.147 of IT Act. Thus, it is requested that assessment order may be quashed. The appellant craves right to add, amend, alter, modify or substitute any or all the grounds of cross objection at the time of hearing. CO Nos.2

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

ITA 498/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya and Tushar NagoriFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

144B dt 28/09/2021 is certainly bad in law, being passed on basis of said illegal notice 148 and proceedings u/s.147 of IT Act. Thus, it is requested that assessment order may be quashed. The appellant craves right to add, amend, alter, modify or substitute any or all the grounds of cross objection at the time of hearing. CO Nos.2

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

ITA 1561/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya and Tushar NagoriFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

144B dt 28/09/2021 is certainly bad in law, being passed on basis of said illegal notice 148 and proceedings u/s.147 of IT Act. Thus, it is requested that assessment order may be quashed. The appellant craves right to add, amend, alter, modify or substitute any or all the grounds of cross objection at the time of hearing. CO Nos.2

KALAVATHI DEVI SHARMA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, NANDED, NANDED

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1519/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. Sadananda Singh, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 68

144B of the Act. 2. When the appeal called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice of hearing. A perusal of the record indicates that in the past assessee had failed to appear on the following dates of hearing viz.19.09.2024, 14.11.2024, 11.03.2025, 16.04.2025 and 07.05.2024. From the above details of notices of hearing which have

JAYDEV MAHADEV ARYA,LATUR vs. ITO WARD 1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1271/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay D. Kulkarni, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250

144B of the IT Act wherein the assessment was completed after making addition of Rs.32,25,000/-. The appellant did not reply to the notices issued and failed to materialize the opportunities offered to the appellant during the assessment proceedings. Now, the appellant has filed appeal before me. The appellant was given another opportunity by issuing a notice asking Copy

JAYDEV MAHADEV ARYA,LATUR vs. ITO WARD 1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1272/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay D. Kulkarni, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 250

144B of the IT Act wherein the assessment was completed after making addition of Rs.32,25,000/-. The appellant did not reply to the notices issued and failed to materialize the opportunities offered to the appellant during the assessment proceedings. Now, the appellant has filed appeal before me. The appellant was given another opportunity by issuing a notice asking Copy