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.

85 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 54clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,605Delhi962Jaipur280Kolkata242Chennai211Bangalore166Ahmedabad147Karnataka109Hyderabad105Chandigarh95Indore86Pune85Surat84Cochin59Amritsar54Rajkot46Raipur44Visakhapatnam41Nagpur41Calcutta37Cuttack30Lucknow30Allahabad29Guwahati21Jodhpur20Agra19Patna16Dehradun11Telangana7Panaji3Jabalpur2Ranchi2Gauhati2Varanasi1SC1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)79Addition to Income61Section 153A43Section 26336Search & Seizure34Section 13231Disallowance29Section 14725Section 92C(3)24

M/S. SHANDAR INTERIORS PVT. LD.,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX : 3,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 908/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, JCIT
Section 143Section 263

54,350/-. There is no scrutiny assessment in this case u/s.143 of the Act. On receipt of information from the DG (Investigation), Pune regarding Hawala/Bogus purchases as supplied by the Sales Tax Department, AO noticed that assessee is one of beneficiary and made purchases of goods from 4 of the parties whose name appear in the list of bogus purchases

M/S. SHANDAR INTERIORS PVT. LD.,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX : 3,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Showing 1–20 of 85 · Page 1 of 5

Bogus Purchases21
Section 14820
Section 133(6)18
ITA 909/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri M.K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Kumar, JCIT
Section 143Section 263

54,350/-. There is no scrutiny assessment in this case u/s.143 of the Act. On receipt of information from the DG (Investigation), Pune regarding Hawala/Bogus purchases as supplied by the Sales Tax Department, AO noticed that assessee is one of beneficiary and made purchases of goods from 4 of the parties whose name appear in the list of bogus purchases

M/S. DELUXE TUBE TRADERS & SCRAP CENTRE,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

ITA 2530/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

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

54,800/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO noticed that the assessee made purchases of Rs.18,50,403/- from M/s. Shiv Industries whose name is listed in the list of bogus dealers by the Sales Tax Department of Maharashtra Government. Eventually, the AO vide order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144 of the Act, made the entire addition of bogus purchases

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. M/S. DELUXE TUBE TRADERS & SCRAP CENTRE,, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

ITA 2197/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

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

54,800/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO noticed that the assessee made purchases of Rs.18,50,403/- from M/s. Shiv Industries whose name is listed in the list of bogus dealers by the Sales Tax Department of Maharashtra Government. Eventually, the AO vide order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144 of the Act, made the entire addition of bogus purchases

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. M/S. DELUXE TUBE TRADERS & SCRAP CENTRE,, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

ITA 2198/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

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

54,800/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO noticed that the assessee made purchases of Rs.18,50,403/- from M/s. Shiv Industries whose name is listed in the list of bogus dealers by the Sales Tax Department of Maharashtra Government. Eventually, the AO vide order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144 of the Act, made the entire addition of bogus purchases

M/S. SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

ITA 1780/PUN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1778 To 1782/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa(Bk), Pune – 411 048. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaccs3670F

For Appellant: Shri Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

section 143(2) after filing the return of income which had rendered the Assessment Order bad in law liable to be set aside. 3. The CIT(A) erred in not deleting the disallowance of Rs.20,31,158/- out of purchases though the purchases were fully verifiable and the payments were made through bank. 4. Without prejudice to Ground

M/S. SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

ITA 1781/PUN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1778 To 1782/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa(Bk), Pune – 411 048. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaccs3670F

For Appellant: Shri Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

section 143(2) after filing the return of income which had rendered the Assessment Order bad in law liable to be set aside. 3. The CIT(A) erred in not deleting the disallowance of Rs.20,31,158/- out of purchases though the purchases were fully verifiable and the payments were made through bank. 4. Without prejudice to Ground

M/S. SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

ITA 1782/PUN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1778 To 1782/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa(Bk), Pune – 411 048. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaccs3670F

For Appellant: Shri Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

section 143(2) after filing the return of income which had rendered the Assessment Order bad in law liable to be set aside. 3. The CIT(A) erred in not deleting the disallowance of Rs.20,31,158/- out of purchases though the purchases were fully verifiable and the payments were made through bank. 4. Without prejudice to Ground

M/S. SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

ITA 1778/PUN/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1778 To 1782/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa(Bk), Pune – 411 048. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaccs3670F

For Appellant: Shri Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

section 143(2) after filing the return of income which had rendered the Assessment Order bad in law liable to be set aside. 3. The CIT(A) erred in not deleting the disallowance of Rs.20,31,158/- out of purchases though the purchases were fully verifiable and the payments were made through bank. 4. Without prejudice to Ground

M/S. SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

ITA 1779/PUN/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1778 To 1782/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa(Bk), Pune – 411 048. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aaccs3670F

For Appellant: Shri Prayag JhaFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

section 143(2) after filing the return of income which had rendered the Assessment Order bad in law liable to be set aside. 3. The CIT(A) erred in not deleting the disallowance of Rs.20,31,158/- out of purchases though the purchases were fully verifiable and the payments were made through bank. 4. Without prejudice to Ground

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. BHARAT IRON SYNDICATE,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2640/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Sept 2020AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vinau DhotrikarFor Respondent: Shri Alok Malviya
Section 133(6)Section 69C

54, Suvidha Kunj, Pitam Pura, Delhi. PAN- AABCG4567F (respondent) Judgment : It is requested that the purchases from the said parties may be fully allowed. 2) Income-tax appellate Tribunal- Ahmedabad Raj Exports, Surat Vs assessee on 11.11.2011, ITA No. 1827/1954/AHD/2005. 3) Vijay Proteins before the Hon'ble ITAT. 4) Avishkar Processing Mills Vs DCIT-before the Hon'ble ITAT, Ahmedabad

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 687/PUN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2019AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

54,93,430/- 28,04,03,784/- 5. From the above table, it is evident that the Assessing Officer made certain additions (i.e. Rs.42,24,481/- for A.Y. 2009-10) on account of bogus purchases calculating at the rate of 2% of URD purchases made in cash on ad-hoc basis. This is common addition made by the Assessing Officer

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 688/PUN/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

54,93,430/- 28,04,03,784/- 5. From the above table, it is evident that the Assessing Officer made certain additions (i.e. Rs.42,24,481/- for A.Y. 2009-10) on account of bogus purchases calculating at the rate of 2% of URD purchases made in cash on ad-hoc basis. This is common addition made by the Assessing Officer

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 690/PUN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

54,93,430/- 28,04,03,784/- 5. From the above table, it is evident that the Assessing Officer made certain additions (i.e. Rs.42,24,481/- for A.Y. 2009-10) on account of bogus purchases calculating at the rate of 2% of URD purchases made in cash on ad-hoc basis. This is common addition made by the Assessing Officer

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 686/PUN/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

54,93,430/- 28,04,03,784/- 5. From the above table, it is evident that the Assessing Officer made certain additions (i.e. Rs.42,24,481/- for A.Y. 2009-10) on account of bogus purchases calculating at the rate of 2% of URD purchases made in cash on ad-hoc basis. This is common addition made by the Assessing Officer

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 689/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2019AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

54,93,430/- 28,04,03,784/- 5. From the above table, it is evident that the Assessing Officer made certain additions (i.e. Rs.42,24,481/- for A.Y. 2009-10) on account of bogus purchases calculating at the rate of 2% of URD purchases made in cash on ad-hoc basis. This is common addition made by the Assessing Officer

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 684/PUN/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

54,93,430/- 28,04,03,784/- 5. From the above table, it is evident that the Assessing Officer made certain additions (i.e. Rs.42,24,481/- for A.Y. 2009-10) on account of bogus purchases calculating at the rate of 2% of URD purchases made in cash on ad-hoc basis. This is common addition made by the Assessing Officer

CHANDUKAKA SARAF AND SONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 685/PUN/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Nov 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S. B. Prasad
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

54,93,430/- 28,04,03,784/- 5. From the above table, it is evident that the Assessing Officer made certain additions (i.e. Rs.42,24,481/- for A.Y. 2009-10) on account of bogus purchases calculating at the rate of 2% of URD purchases made in cash on ad-hoc basis. This is common addition made by the Assessing Officer

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI AKSHAY RAJESH SAMDARIYA,, JALNA

In the result, the appeal of Revenue and the Cross Objections

ITA 2076/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2076/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri K. SrinivasanFor Respondent: Ms. Sabhana Parveen
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148

54,696/- Total Rs.2,78,55,984/- 3. The Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated 27-03-2015 passed under section 144 r.w.s. 147 made addition of the entire amount held to be bogus purchases

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)

54,79,714 ₹3,05,591 0.03% M/s. Someshwar enterprise Pvt. Ltd. ₹24,36,33,533 ₹1,68,362 0.069% M/s. Anuradha Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. ₹7,81,80,000 ₹3,16,000 0.4% M/s. Ferrum Alloys Pvt. Ltd. ₹9,89,98,584 ₹10,98,357 1.1% M/s. Accurate Metal Corporation ₹(-)3,35,765 NA M/s. Jasonath NO DATA Bright Steel