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.

111 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 2(22)(e)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,320Delhi1,324Kolkata410Chennai316Jaipur285Ahmedabad258Bangalore230Surat224Chandigarh158Indore147Karnataka116Hyderabad115Pune111Rajkot88Raipur82Nagpur66Cochin60Visakhapatnam50Lucknow48Cuttack46Guwahati42Calcutta37Allahabad29Agra27Jodhpur27Amritsar19Telangana10Patna7Varanasi7SC6Jabalpur5Ranchi4Panaji2Dehradun2Gauhati1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)101Section 14874Addition to Income56Section 153A47Section 14744Section 13237Disallowance36Search & Seizure33Section 143(2)31

ABIL REALTY PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 446/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 Abil Realty Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward 1(1), Pune Abil House, 2 Ganesh Khind Road, Vs. Range Hill Corner, Pune – 411007 Pan: Aaica8531I (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket M Joshi & Mandar Joshi Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 08-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-03-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sanket M Joshi & Mandar JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)

purchased and sold was not owned by the appellant company but by M/s Beeline Impex Pvt. Ltd & Pearl Cosmetics & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. the said land was having certain legal issues and encumbrances due to which the development of the property was not possible. It is far-fetched that a real estate business entity would give/take an advance of crores

Showing 1–20 of 111 · Page 1 of 6

Section 10(38)25
Section 92C(3)24
Reopening of Assessment17

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. I have already decided this issue in M/s. Chetan Enterprises Vs. ACIT (supra) and held that in cases where the Assessing Officer has failed to supply such statement recorded by the Sales Tax Department or any other evidence justifying the addition, no addition is to be made in the hands of assessee. The grounds of appeal raised

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. I have already decided this issue in M/s. Chetan Enterprises Vs. ACIT (supra) and held that in cases where the Assessing Officer has failed to supply such statement recorded by the Sales Tax Department or any other evidence justifying the addition, no addition is to be made in the hands of assessee. The grounds of appeal raised

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. I have already decided this issue in M/s. Chetan Enterprises Vs. ACIT (supra) and held that in cases where the Assessing Officer has failed to supply such statement recorded by the Sales Tax Department or any other evidence justifying the addition, no addition is to be made in the hands of assessee. The grounds of appeal raised

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. I have already decided this issue in M/s. Chetan Enterprises Vs. ACIT (supra) and held that in cases where the Assessing Officer has failed to supply such statement recorded by the Sales Tax Department or any other evidence justifying the addition, no addition is to be made in the hands of assessee. The grounds of appeal raised

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)

purchases has been proved by corroborated by way of invoices and bank payments. The case laws relied by the appellant are found to be applicable to the facts of the case in hand and supports the appellants case. 6 8.3 Considering the fact that, the A.O has not brought on record any defect in the books of accounts maintained

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)

e-way bills, etc. the fact remains that such parties neither responded to notices issued u/s 133(6) nor appeared before the Assessing Officer in response to the Summons issued u/s 131 of the Act. At the same time, it is also an admitted fact that the sales of the assessee have not been disputed and the books of account

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)

bogus purchases from various entities in respect of the assessee company. In the appraisal report names of 19 parties were mentioned. Notices u/s 133(6) of the Act were issued to these parties and the purchases were confirmed by the parties except OM Traders, Sunny Traders and Krypton Scrap Works Pvt. Ltd. It was further mentioned that information was also

CO-OPERATION METALS,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(3), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2321/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

E R PER BENCH: ITA No.2319/PUN/2024 and ITA No.2262/PUN/2024 are cross appeals. The first one is filed by the assessee and the second one filed by the Revenue and are directed against the order dated 12.09.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2009-10. ITA No.2321/PUN/2024 and ITA No.2320/PUN/2024 filed by the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. COOPERATION METALS, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2263/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2026AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

E R PER BENCH: ITA No.2319/PUN/2024 and ITA No.2262/PUN/2024 are cross appeals. The first one is filed by the assessee and the second one filed by the Revenue and are directed against the order dated 12.09.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2009-10. ITA No.2321/PUN/2024 and ITA No.2320/PUN/2024 filed by the assessee

CO-OPERATION METALS,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(3), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2320/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2026AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

E R PER BENCH: ITA No.2319/PUN/2024 and ITA No.2262/PUN/2024 are cross appeals. The first one is filed by the assessee and the second one filed by the Revenue and are directed against the order dated 12.09.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2009-10. ITA No.2321/PUN/2024 and ITA No.2320/PUN/2024 filed by the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. COOPERATION METALS, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2262/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2026AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

E R PER BENCH: ITA No.2319/PUN/2024 and ITA No.2262/PUN/2024 are cross appeals. The first one is filed by the assessee and the second one filed by the Revenue and are directed against the order dated 12.09.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2009-10. ITA No.2321/PUN/2024 and ITA No.2320/PUN/2024 filed by the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. COOPERATION METALS, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2271/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

E R PER BENCH: ITA No.2319/PUN/2024 and ITA No.2262/PUN/2024 are cross appeals. The first one is filed by the assessee and the second one filed by the Revenue and are directed against the order dated 12.09.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2009-10. ITA No.2321/PUN/2024 and ITA No.2320/PUN/2024 filed by the assessee

CO-OPERATION METALS,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(3), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2319/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2026AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147

E R PER BENCH: ITA No.2319/PUN/2024 and ITA No.2262/PUN/2024 are cross appeals. The first one is filed by the assessee and the second one filed by the Revenue and are directed against the order dated 12.09.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2009-10. ITA No.2321/PUN/2024 and ITA No.2320/PUN/2024 filed by the assessee

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,SATARA CIRCLE,SATARA, SATARA vs. KAY BOUVET ENGINEERING LIMITED, SATARA

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

ITA 1392/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar &For Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR and Manish M. Mehta
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 148

2% of the bogus sales amounting to Rs.180,05,90,205/- on the ground that the assessee had shown false entries of purchases made from non-existing entities. Therefore, the assessee’s claim of sales out of such purchases is also bogus and the assessee would have earned only the commission for providing such false entries in its books

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

E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 10.04.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2020-21. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and the proprietor of Pooja Jewellers engaged in trading of jewellery and ornaments

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

e-filing, which may be treated as return in response to notice issued under section 148 of the Act. The assessee also raised objections to re- assessment proceedings and issue of notice under section 148 of the Act, which were specifically redressed by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee as to why purchases made from the alleged

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

e-filing, which may be treated as return in response to notice issued under section 148 of the Act. The assessee also raised objections to re- assessment proceedings and issue of notice under section 148 of the Act, which were specifically redressed by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee as to why purchases made from the alleged

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

e-filing, which may be treated as return in response to notice issued under section 148 of the Act. The assessee also raised objections to re- assessment proceedings and issue of notice under section 148 of the Act, which were specifically redressed by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee as to why purchases made from the alleged

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

e-filing, which may be treated as return in response to notice issued under section 148 of the Act. The assessee also raised objections to re- assessment proceedings and issue of notice under section 148 of the Act, which were specifically redressed by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer asked the assessee as to why purchases made from the alleged