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.

22 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 40aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai377Delhi329Chennai134Kolkata100Ahmedabad61Bangalore59Amritsar46Jaipur45Hyderabad45Indore31Rajkot28Pune22Surat20Chandigarh19Allahabad18Nagpur15Visakhapatnam12Jodhpur11Raipur10Guwahati9Cuttack8Lucknow7Agra5Dehradun3Ranchi3Calcutta3Patna2Karnataka2Cochin1

Key Topics

Section 40A(3)22Section 143(3)17Addition to Income12Section 14A10Disallowance9Business Income8Section 1327Section 132(4)7Section 1487

SURESH CHUNNILAL SHARMA,,PARBHANI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - PARBHANI,, PARBHANI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1883/PUN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1883/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

Section 40A(3)

purchase of stock in trade otherwise than by a account payee cheque etc. Going with the mandate of the sub- section (3) of section 40A, disallowance is required in respect of such expenditure. 6. Now I need to ascertain if the assessee can get any succour under the first proviso to section 40A(3A), which carves out exceptions

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 Pune

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2

Search & Seizure7
Bogus Purchases5
Deduction5
10 Dec 2025
AY 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)

40A(3) etc. Thus, in the fitness of things, purchases as such are being disallowed in this case is completely justified. 6.5. Thus, in the case under hands, an addition on account of 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

TULSI EXTRUSIONS LTD.,,JALGAON vs. JOINT COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1434/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1434/Pun/2014 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Tulsi Extrusions Ltd. N-99 & 100, Midc Area, Ajantha Road, Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon, Pin-425 003 Pan : Aaact8441P .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1, Jalgaon. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Ms. Kesang Y Sherpa
Section 14A

bogus purchases of machinery and interest thereon on borrowed funds are upheld. Thus, ground No.2 raised in appeal by the assessee is dismissed. 12. Ground No.3 is general in nature and hence, requires no adjudication. 13. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1434/PUN/2014 is partly allowed. A.Y.2010-11 A.Y. 2010-11 Now, we take up the issues

INCOME TAX OFFICER,, JALNA vs. M/S. GOVINDAM METAL & ALLOYS PVT. LTD,, JALNA

In the result, appeal of the assesse in ITA No

ITA 40/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 40/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Jalna. .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Govindam Metal & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.B-15, Addl. Midc Area, Jalna- 431 203. Pan : Aacct9215F ………प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 81/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Govindam Metal & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. C/O. Sandeep Narendra Agarwal, Bharat Nagar, Near Shivaji Statue, Jalna-431 203. Pan : Aacct9215F .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Jalna. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A M Mahadevan Krishnan
Section 133(6)Section 40A(3)

section 40A(3) and 69C of the IT Act,1961 from some other parties and obtained only the bills from the hawala dealers without movement of goods including A.Y.2009-10 circumstantial evidences in the form of transportation, weightment slips and debiting the expenses into the cash book for such expenses. 3. The order of the AO be restored and that

M/S. GOVINDAM METAL & ALLOYS P.LTD,,JALNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, JALNA

In the result, appeal of the assesse in ITA No

ITA 81/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 May 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 40/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Jalna. .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Govindam Metal & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.B-15, Addl. Midc Area, Jalna- 431 203. Pan : Aacct9215F ………प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 81/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Govindam Metal & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. C/O. Sandeep Narendra Agarwal, Bharat Nagar, Near Shivaji Statue, Jalna-431 203. Pan : Aacct9215F .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Jalna. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A M Mahadevan Krishnan
Section 133(6)Section 40A(3)

section 40A(3) and 69C of the IT Act,1961 from some other parties and obtained only the bills from the hawala dealers without movement of goods including A.Y.2009-10 circumstantial evidences in the form of transportation, weightment slips and debiting the expenses into the cash book for such expenses. 3. The order of the AO be restored and that

ITO, WARD-1(1), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR vs. MS. KSHIRSAGAR FABRICS, SOLAPUR

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

ITA 97/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

40A(3) were examined and it was found that none of the payments have exceeded Rs.20,000/- in a day and there are no split payments, the reopening of assessment on the very issue in our opinion is nothing but a change of opinion. 20. We find the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. ICICI Securities

FIROZ NASIR SAUDAGAR,PUNE vs. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER - 3,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1580/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1580/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)

bogus and has made addition for violation of provisions of sec 40A(3) only. The purchases from Shri Vinayak Kale were of Rs.1104065 and payment through the bearer cheques were of Rs.1080000. The Assessing officer has made addition of Rs.1080000 and not Rs.1104065. In view of the above facts and circumstances the Commissioner (Appeals) is not justified in confirming

DILIP BABURAO DALVI,,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2 (1),, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 1552/PUN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Dilip Baburao Dalvi Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), 33, Shivaji Housing Society, Kolhapur 12Th Lane Rajarampuri, Kolhapur – 416008 Pan : Abepd8027H Appellant Respondent

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

bogus purchases to the tune of Rs.8,34,600. However, the addition has been made u/s 40A(3) of the Act. Making of disallowance u/s 40A(3) of the Act pre-supposes genuineness of the transaction. This section

RAJENDRA MULCHAND GOTHI,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1291/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 44A

bogus for the purpose of purchase of diesel. We find that Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh Vs. ITO (supra) has held that the terms of section 40A

M/S. GORUR INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,RAIGAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3, RAIGAD

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1601/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1601/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Gorur Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. 314 Shubham Complex Sec.11, New Panvel Dist- Raigad .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aadcg5519J

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 11Section 143(3)Section 32Section 80I

bogus purchases in light of CBDT Circular No. 37 dated 02.11.2016 dealing with chapter VI-A deduction on enhanced profits by virtue of disallowance(s) made u/s. 32, 40(a)(ia), 40A(3), 43B etc. of the Act. Mr. Walimbe at this stage invited our attention to the CIT(A)’s discussion in para 6 to 6.2 that the assessee

SHREE SANTOSHIMATA MAJOOR SAHAKARI SANSTHA,PEN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

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

ITA 2019/PUN/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Apr 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2019/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shree Santoshimata Majoor Vs. Ito, Ward-4, Panvel. Sahakari Sanstha, 203, Gr. Floor, Sonkhar, Pen, Raigad- 402107. Pan : Avhpm2201K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sunil R. Talreja Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 08.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of This Appeal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit. We Are Satisfied With The Explanation Of The Assessee That He Was Prevented By Reasonable Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within Prescribed Time Limit. Ld. Dr Raised No Serious

For Appellant: Shri Sunil R. TalrejaFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 44ASection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

bogus. It was also submitted by Ld. AR that the deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(vi) was also rightly claimed by the assessee since the contract work were executed with the help of members of the assessee cooperative society, who also happens to be the labours. Accordingly, it was prayed by Ld. AR that deduction

M/S. ANGRE PORT (P) LTD.,,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2148/PUN/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2148/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Angre Port (P) Ltd., Formerly Jaigad Ports Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Plot No.221, Midc, Mirjole, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ratnagiri – 415612 …. Pan: Aabcj5401A Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-3, Ratnagiri

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 143(3)Section 194

40A(3) without appreciating facts. 5.2 The Commissioner (Appeals) did not find these purchases to be sham or bogus and they have been used in the business due to absence of power supply by Electricity Board and having regard to the location of the sellers and business needs the payment cannot be disallowed on technicalities. 5.3 The Commissioner (Appeals) ought

M/S. ANGRE PORT (P) LTD.,,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1046/PUN/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2148/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Angre Port (P) Ltd., Formerly Jaigad Ports Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Plot No.221, Midc, Mirjole, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ratnagiri – 415612 …. Pan: Aabcj5401A Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-3, Ratnagiri

For Appellant: Shri Mihir NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghei
Section 143(3)Section 194

40A(3) without appreciating facts. 5.2 The Commissioner (Appeals) did not find these purchases to be sham or bogus and they have been used in the business due to absence of power supply by Electricity Board and having regard to the location of the sellers and business needs the payment cannot be disallowed on technicalities. 5.3 The Commissioner (Appeals) ought

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1247/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri B. Kishore
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

bogus expenses amounting to Rs.89,79,588/- under the head ‘Purchase of stilt and cement’ for the year under consideration, which was added in his hands. The assessee had sought set off with the disclosure already made and also it was contended that the said income offered in respect of purchases was part of business income and infrastructural activities

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1178/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri B. Kishore
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

bogus expenses amounting to Rs.89,79,588/- under the head ‘Purchase of stilt and cement’ for the year under consideration, which was added in his hands. The assessee had sought set off with the disclosure already made and also it was contended that the said income offered in respect of purchases was part of business income and infrastructural activities

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1245/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri B. Kishore
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

bogus expenses amounting to Rs.89,79,588/- under the head ‘Purchase of stilt and cement’ for the year under consideration, which was added in his hands. The assessee had sought set off with the disclosure already made and also it was contended that the said income offered in respect of purchases was part of business income and infrastructural activities

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, KOLHAPUR vs. VIJAYKUMAR RAJARAM SHAH,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 608/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri B. Kishore
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

bogus expenses amounting to Rs.89,79,588/- under the head ‘Purchase of stilt and cement’ for the year under consideration, which was added in his hands. The assessee had sought set off with the disclosure already made and also it was contended that the said income offered in respect of purchases was part of business income and infrastructural activities

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1179/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri B. Kishore
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

bogus expenses amounting to Rs.89,79,588/- under the head ‘Purchase of stilt and cement’ for the year under consideration, which was added in his hands. The assessee had sought set off with the disclosure already made and also it was contended that the said income offered in respect of purchases was part of business income and infrastructural activities

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1177/PUN/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri B. Kishore
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

bogus expenses amounting to Rs.89,79,588/- under the head ‘Purchase of stilt and cement’ for the year under consideration, which was added in his hands. The assessee had sought set off with the disclosure already made and also it was contended that the said income offered in respect of purchases was part of business income and infrastructural activities

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1246/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jun 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Dr. P. Daniel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri B. Kishore
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

bogus expenses amounting to Rs.89,79,588/- under the head ‘Purchase of stilt and cement’ for the year under consideration, which was added in his hands. The assessee had sought set off with the disclosure already made and also it was contended that the said income offered in respect of purchases was part of business income and infrastructural activities