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.

93 results for “bogus purchases”+ Deductionclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,552Delhi1,155Kolkata447Jaipur401Chennai373Ahmedabad284Bangalore194Pune165Hyderabad159Chandigarh147Surat132Indore113Raipur93Nagpur64Visakhapatnam62Cochin62Cuttack56Rajkot54Lucknow48Amritsar43Allahabad34Guwahati30Agra26Jodhpur26Karnataka13Ranchi11Dehradun9Patna8Varanasi8Panaji5Telangana5SC4Jabalpur3Calcutta3ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Addition to Income85Section 143(3)70Bogus Purchases36Section 14734Section 6833Disallowance31Section 271(1)(c)29Section 143(2)26Section 145(3)

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERS BHAGWATI INDUSTRIES, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 184/RPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.184/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Bhagawati Industries Behind Samrat Talkies, Station Road, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan : Aaifk4253H ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: S/shri G.S. Agarwal, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 250(4)Section 69C

bogus. This being a finding of fact, we have proceeded on such basis. Despite this, the question arises whether the Revenue is correct in contending that the entire purchase amount should be added by way of assessee's additional income or the assessee is correct in contending that such logic cannot be applied. The finding

Showing 1–20 of 93 · Page 1 of 5

21
Section 26320
Section 69C17
Survey u/s 133A16

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR vs. SHANTA TECHNO PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

ITA 155/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 155/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

bogus purchase under section 69C of the Act, thereby determining the assessee's income at Rs. 5,43,80,670/-. 4. An appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals), who allowed the appeal partly vide its order dated 19th May, 2015. The Appellate Authority held that payments made by the assessee were through banking channels and that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2),, RAIPUR vs. SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL, NEORA, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 15/RPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.15/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Shri Rajendra Kumar Agrawal, M/S. Amit Chawal Udyog Neora, Tilda, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Acipa5919L ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By :S/Shri G.S. Agrawal & N.C Gupta, Ar’S Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: S/shri G.S. Agrawal &For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 69C

bogus. This being a finding of fact, we have proceeded on such basis. Despite this, the question arises whether the Revenue is correct in contending that the entire purchase amount should be added by way of assessee's additional income or the assessee is correct in contending that such logic cannot be applied. The finding

MESERS P.D. RICE UDYOG,,RAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 1(1), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is disposed off in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 210/RPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.210/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. P.D Rice Udyog Samrat Talkies, Station Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadfp0368H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.11/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. P.D Rice Udyog Samrat Talkies, Station Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadfp0368H

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 69C

bogus. This being a finding of fact, we have proceeded on such basis. Despite this, the question arises whether the Revenue is correct in contending that the entire purchase amount should be added by way of assessee's additional income or the assessee is correct in 15 M/s. P.D Rice Udyog Vs. DCIT-1(1), Raipur ITA No.11/RPR/2019 contending that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 1(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERS P.D. RICE UDYOG,, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is disposed off in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 11/RPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.210/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. P.D Rice Udyog Samrat Talkies, Station Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadfp0368H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.11/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. P.D Rice Udyog Samrat Talkies, Station Road, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Aadfp0368H

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 69C

bogus. This being a finding of fact, we have proceeded on such basis. Despite this, the question arises whether the Revenue is correct in contending that the entire purchase amount should be added by way of assessee's additional income or the assessee is correct in 15 M/s. P.D Rice Udyog Vs. DCIT-1(1), Raipur ITA No.11/RPR/2019 contending that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), RAIPUR vs. MESERS BALAJI RICE INDUSTRIES, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 181/RPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.168/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Balaji Rice Industries, Kharora, Tah-Tilda, Raipur (C.G.)-493 225 Pan : Aacfb4543M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.181/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Balaji Rice Industries, Kharora, Tah-Tilda, Raipur (C.G.)-493 225 Pan : Aacfb4543M ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 69C

bogus. This being a finding of fact, we have proceeded on such basis. Despite this, the question arises whether the Revenue is correct in contending that the entire purchase amount should be added by way of assessee's additional income or the assessee is correct in contending that such logic cannot be applied. The finding

MESERS BALAJI RICE INDUSTRIES,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 168/RPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.168/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Balaji Rice Industries, Kharora, Tah-Tilda, Raipur (C.G.)-493 225 Pan : Aacfb4543M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.181/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Balaji Rice Industries, Kharora, Tah-Tilda, Raipur (C.G.)-493 225 Pan : Aacfb4543M ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 69C

bogus. This being a finding of fact, we have proceeded on such basis. Despite this, the question arises whether the Revenue is correct in contending that the entire purchase amount should be added by way of assessee's additional income or the assessee is correct in contending that such logic cannot be applied. The finding

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERS TIRUPATI BALAJI FOOD PRIVATE LIMITED, TILDA

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 13/RPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.202/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Tirupati Balaji Foods Pvt. Ltd., Tilda-Neora, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aacct7476L ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.13/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Tirupati Balaji Foods Pvt. Ltd., Tilda-Neora, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aacct7476L ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT- DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 69C

deducting:- 2 & 3 9.18% 1. Alleged bogus purchase 2. Sales related to alleged bogus purchase 3. Difference in GP rate

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERS TIRUPATI BALAJI FOOD PRIVATE LIMITED, TILDA

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 202/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.202/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Tirupati Balaji Foods Pvt. Ltd., Tilda-Neora, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aacct7476L ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.13/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Tirupati Balaji Foods Pvt. Ltd., Tilda-Neora, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aacct7476L ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT- DR
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 250(4)Section 69C

deducting:- 2 & 3 9.18% 1. Alleged bogus purchase 2. Sales related to alleged bogus purchase 3. Difference in GP rate

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), RAIPUR vs. MESERS SATYANARAYAN NATHULAL, TILDA-NEORA

In the result appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 178/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhaiआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 178/Rpr/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Income Tax Officer-1(2) Raipur (C.G) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S Satyanarayan Nathulal Gandhi Chowk, Tilda-Neora Dist: Raipur (C.G) Pan : Aakfs1487K ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ravi Agrawal Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri

For Appellant: Shri Ravi AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri
Section 131Section 133ASection 254(4)

deducting their commission. These bogus bills had no transport or bill/transport challans or weigh bridge ships in support of its genuineness. In normal course of business events, the bills of purchases

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), RAIPUR vs. MESERS GOYAL AGRO INDUSTRIES, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 217/RPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 217/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer-2(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Goyal Agro Industries, 21/570 Puran Dal Mill, Ramsagar Para, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aaefg6054E ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

bogus purchases could not be sustained. Accordingly, the A.O on the basis of his aforesaid observations, made an ad-hoc disallowance of Rs.5 lac out of assessee’s claim of hamali expenses. 19. We have heard the Ld. DR as regards the aforesaid issue under consideration. Although the A.O had observed that the assesee’s claim for deduction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1), RAIPUR vs. TIRUPATI BALAJI FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 657/RPR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.657/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

bogus purchases. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, with the above directions.” 4. It is clearly discernable from the aforesaid observation of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC that reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Pr. CIT-17 Vs. Mohammad Haji Adam & Co., ITA No.1004/2016, dated 11.02.2019 wherein

HARSHA RICE MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(1), RAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 156/RPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.156/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Harsha Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. D-22, Sector-5, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aabch7123H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.170/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Harsha Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. D-22, Sector-5, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aabch7123H ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 250(4)

bogus. This being a finding of fact, we have proceeded on such basis. Despite this, the question arises whether the Revenue is correct in contending that the entire purchase amount should be added by way of assessee's additional income or the assessee is correct in contending that such logic cannot be applied. The finding

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 3(1), RAIPUR vs. HARSHA RICE MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 170/RPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.156/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Harsha Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. D-22, Sector-5, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aabch7123H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.170/Rpr/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Harsha Rice Mills Pvt. Ltd. D-22, Sector-5, Devendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aabch7123H ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 250(4)

bogus. This being a finding of fact, we have proceeded on such basis. Despite this, the question arises whether the Revenue is correct in contending that the entire purchase amount should be added by way of assessee's additional income or the assessee is correct in contending that such logic cannot be applied. The finding

SURESH SHARMA,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 36/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur04 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 36/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

bogus purchases at the same rate as that of the other genuine purchases. Needless to say, the A.O shall in the course of set-aside proceedings afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 18. At the same time, we may herein observe that the A.O while framing the assessment had also pointed out certain discrepancies/infirmities

ASHOK KUMAR WADHWANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 118/RPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.117 &118/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17 Ashok Kumar Wadhwani, Ujwal Udyog, Sinodha, Neora, Tilda, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aahpw1400B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

deducting their commission. These bogus bills had no transport or bilti/transport challans or weigh bridge slips in support of its genuinity. In normal course of business events, the bills of purchases

ASHOK KUMAR WADHWANI, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 117/RPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur14 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.117 &118/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17 Ashok Kumar Wadhwani, Ujwal Udyog, Sinodha, Neora, Tilda, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Pan: Aahpw1400B .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

deducting their commission. These bogus bills had no transport or bilti/transport challans or weigh bridge slips in support of its genuinity. In normal course of business events, the bills of purchases

SHANTI PARBOILING INDUSTRIES,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 99/RPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.99/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)

bogus. This being a finding of fact, we have proceeded on such basis. Despite this, the question arises whether the Revenue is correct in contending that the entire purchase amount should be added by way of assessee's additional income or the assessee is correct in contending that such logic cannot be applied. The finding

RAVI KEDIA, BALODA BAZAR,BALODA BAZAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD BHATAPARA, BALODA BAZAR, BALODA BAZAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of my aforesaid observations

ITA 111/RPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur25 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 111/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Ravi Kedia, Ekdand Chawal Udyog, Village Risda, Baloda Bazar, Chhattisgarh-493 332 Pan : Ajrpk5750D .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-Bhatapara (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

bogus. This being a finding of fact, we have proceeded on such basis. Despite this, the question arises whether the Revenue is correct in contending that the entire purchase amount should be added by way of assessee's additional income or the assessee is correct in contending that such logic cannot be applied. The finding

M/S GOPAL RICE INDUSTRIES ,DHAMTARI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ,WARD , DHAMTARI

In the result, appeals of the assessee and revenue are allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 62/RPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri G D Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.62/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2014-15 M/S. Gopal Rice Industries, Vill. Sambalpur, Raipur Road, Dhamtari (C.G.) Pan :Aabfi4303F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Dhamtari (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.74/Rpr/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, Ward- Dhamtari (C.G.) .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. M/S. Gopal Rice Industries, Vill. Sambalpur, Raipur Road, Dhamtari (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan :Aabfi4303F

For Appellant: Shri G.S Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

bogus. This being a finding of fact, we have proceeded on such basis. Despite this, the question arises whether the Revenue is correct in contending that the entire purchase amount should be added by way of assessee's additional income or the assessee is correct in contending that such logic cannot be applied. The finding