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.

52 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 35clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai889Delhi548Jaipur200Chennai177Kolkata148Bangalore132Ahmedabad112Chandigarh98Indore67Surat66Raipur64Amritsar60Hyderabad60Cochin59Rajkot57Pune52Guwahati41Visakhapatnam38Allahabad27Lucknow24Jodhpur22Nagpur22Patna11Agra9Varanasi6Jabalpur5Cuttack4Ranchi3Panaji3Dehradun2

Key Topics

Section 6837Section 143(3)29Section 14727Section 10(38)26Section 14825Addition to Income23Section 13222Section 143(2)22Section 271(1)(c)14

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)

35,36,451 Total 17,49,83,488 3,14,97,032 20,64,80,520 19. However, we find the Assessing Officer in the impugned assessment order, has made the entire addition of bogus / untested purchases and these orders of the Assessing Officer passed u/s 143(3) / 147 were passed after the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Although

Showing 1–20 of 52 · Page 1 of 3

Penny Stock12
Reopening of Assessment12
Long Term Capital Gains10

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)

35,36,451\nTotal\n17,49,83,488\n3,14,97,032\n20,64,80,520\n19. However, we find the Assessing Officer in the impugned assessment order,\nhas made the entire addition of bogus / untested purchases and these orders of the\nAssessing Officer passed u/s 143(3) / 147 were passed after the order of the Ld.\nCIT(A). Although

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

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)

35,765 NA M/s. Jasonath NO DATA Bright Steel Ltd. (g) The assessment order of M/s Sharp King Trading Pvt. Ltd. has rejected the books of accounts of it and has made an addition of Rs.2,55,76,564/-. Thus, proving that the purchases made by the assessee, M/s Taparia Tools Limited is bogus as well. Given below is screenshot

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)

Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, holds significant evidentiary value and should not have been dismissed merely due to the absence of cross-examination. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the case laws relied upon

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)

Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, holds significant evidentiary value and should not have been dismissed merely due to the absence of cross-examination. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the case laws relied upon

HETAL RAKESH MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-1(2), PUNE

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

ITA 1727/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Hetal Rakesh Mehta Acit, Central Circle 1(2), 9/10, Vidya Nagar, 60 Feet Road, Vs. Pune Ghatkopar East, Mumbai – 400077 Pan: Ammpm9670L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms Simran Dhawan (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ravi Prakash
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

35. Plea of violation of natural justice taken at the appellate stage appears to be belated and clearly an afterthought. It appears that no prejudice had been suffered by the appellant assessee in the manner the proceeding was conducted by the Assessing Officer and the assessee was not aggrieved at that stage. Only when the assessment order went against

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 and expenses were pending to be received even till 31.03.2010, the provisioning made was not accepted and added back to the income, After making the above two additions, the income of the assessee was assessed at Rs.30,94,50,800/-.\n6. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings, assessee along with making

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

35,000/-. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 4. Subsequently, Ld. CIT(A) in quantum appeal proceedings vide order dated 03.08.2017 directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the gross profit @ 2.25% and re-compute the profit instead of making addition on account of bogus purchases since

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

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

35,387/- claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act\nafter considering the reply of the assessee to the specific queries put by him. We\nfind on the basis of information obtained from the Investigation wing that the\nassessee has sold his investments in penny stock company NITSL, reopened the\nassessment after recording the reasons. The reasons recorded

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

35,387/- claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act\nafter considering the reply of the assessee to the specific queries put by him. We\nfind on the basis of information obtained from the Investigation wing that the\nassessee has sold his investments in penny stock company NITSL, reopened the\nassessment after recording the reasons. The reasons recorded

DINESHKUMAR RAMCHANDRA TULSYAN (HUF),,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5),, NASHIK

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

ITA 813/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dineshkumar Ramchandra Tulsyan (Huf) Ito, Ward 1(5), 214B, Laxmi Niwas, Mahatma Nagar, Vs. Nashik Nashik – 422007 Pan: Aachd5953R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Sumandevi Dineshkumar Tulsyan Ito, Ward 1(5), 214B, Laxmi Niwas, Mahatma Nagar, Vs. Nashik Nashik – 422007 Pan: Ackpt1322Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Haladkar (through virtual)
Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144A

bogus, when the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee establish genuineness of the claim. In the case of PCIT vs. Indravadan Jain (HUF) (supra), the broker through whom, the assessee had carried out the transactions have been alleged to have been indulged in price manipulations and the SEBI had also passed an order regarding irregularities and synchronized trades carried

JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

ITA 2016/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Jaiprakash BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

purchase and sale of share as sham transactions and sale proceeds of shares were treated as undisclosed income under section 68, since payments were received through account payee cheques and transactions were done through recognized stock exchange, and there was no evidence that assessee had paid cash in return of receipt through cheque Tribunal rightly deleted addition holding that transactions

M/S. GORDHANSINGH S RAJPUROHIT,NAVI MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, PANVEL

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

ITA 512/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 68

35 Sector 34 Kamothe, Vs. Navi Mumbai-410209 PAN : AHZPR5946C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : N O N E Department by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 01-07-2024 Date of 01-07-2024 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1130/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025
Section 12Section 127Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

section (3) of section 143 for any\nprevious year; or\nc) Such case has been selected in accordance with the risk\nmanagement strategy, formulated by the Board from time to\ntime, for any previous year;\nThe Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall—\ni.\ncall for such documents or information from the trust\nor institution, or make such inquiry as he thinks

R. K. WINES,PEN vs. ITO, WARD 4, PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 301/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 May 2025AY 2022-23
Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 250

bogus purchases from the disputed\ncreditors. It is thus the case that without such purchases the subsequent\nsale of liquor could not have been effected.\nThe appellant submits that non responding by some parties to notice us\n133(6) cannot be a ground to reject book results u/s 145(3) Reliance\nplaced on CIT-vs-Jas Jack Elegance Exports

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

ITA 147/PUN/2024[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

35,357/-\nA.Y. 2012-13 LTCG of Rs.93,82,427/-\nAns. Please give the details of Capital Gains Earned by him i.e. Name of\nAsset, Date of Purchase, Cost of Purchase, Date of Sale of Asset,\nAmount of Sale and copies of Relevant Pass Books. Please also\nfurnish the copies of Broker Notes in respect of Purchase and Sale

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 140/PUN/2024[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

35,357/- Α.Υ. 2012-13 LTCG of Rs.93,82,427/- Please give the details of Capital Gains Earned by him i.e. Name of Asset, Date of Purchase, Cost of Purchase, Date of Sale of Asset, Amount of Sale and copies of Relevant Pass Books. Please also furnish the copies of Broker Notes in respect of Purchase and Sale

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 146/PUN/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

35,357/- Α.Υ. 2012-13 LTCG of Rs.93,82,427/- Please give the details of Capital Gains Earned by him i.e. Name of Asset, Date of Purchase, Cost of Purchase, Date of Sale of Asset, Amount of Sale and copies of Relevant Pass Books. Please also furnish the copies of Broker Notes in respect of Purchase and Sale

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 143/PUN/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

35,357/- Α.Υ. 2012-13 LTCG of Rs.93,82,427/- Please give the details of Capital Gains Earned by him i.e. Name of Asset, Date of Purchase, Cost of Purchase, Date of Sale of Asset, Amount of Sale and copies of Relevant Pass Books. Please also furnish the copies of Broker Notes in respect of Purchase and Sale