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.

30 results for “bogus purchases”+ Search & Seizureclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,797Delhi1,274Jaipur327Chennai236Kolkata227Bangalore198Surat194Hyderabad147Chandigarh126Karnataka104Pune97Ahmedabad81Cochin59Visakhapatnam54Nagpur47Indore37Amritsar35Guwahati33Allahabad31Raipur30Rajkot28Patna26Cuttack22Jodhpur21Lucknow16Ranchi12Dehradun8Agra6Calcutta4Orissa2Panaji2Gauhati2Jabalpur2Rajasthan1Telangana1

Key Topics

Addition to Income25Section 6818Section 14714Search & Seizure14Section 14812Section 25012Section 153C10Section 145(3)10Section 153A9Section 133(6)

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R.ENERGY LTD.,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

ITA 229/BIL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jan 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CITDR
Section 133(6)Section 68

bogus bills of husk purchase for the purpose of entry in the books of accounts. Enquiries conducted to trace the suppliers of husk during the course of search and seizure

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R.ENERGY LTD.,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

Showing 1–20 of 30 · Page 1 of 2

9
Unexplained Cash Credit7
Survey u/s 133A4
ITA 228/BIL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jan 2018AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CITDR
Section 133(6)Section 68

bogus bills of husk purchase for the purpose of entry in the books of accounts. Enquiries conducted to trace the suppliers of husk during the course of search and seizure

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R.ENERGY LTD.,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

ITA 226/BIL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jan 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CITDR
Section 133(6)Section 68

bogus bills of husk purchase for the purpose of entry in the books of accounts. Enquiries conducted to trace the suppliers of husk during the course of search and seizure

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R.ENERGY LTD.,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

ITA 225/BIL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jan 2018AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CITDR
Section 133(6)Section 68

bogus bills of husk purchase for the purpose of entry in the books of accounts. Enquiries conducted to trace the suppliers of husk during the course of search and seizure

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R.ENERGY LTD.,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

ITA 231/BIL/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jan 2018AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CITDR
Section 133(6)Section 68

bogus bills of husk purchase for the purpose of entry in the books of accounts. Enquiries conducted to trace the suppliers of husk during the course of search and seizure

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R.ENERGY LTD.,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

ITA 227/BIL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jan 2018AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CITDR
Section 133(6)Section 68

bogus bills of husk purchase for the purpose of entry in the books of accounts. Enquiries conducted to trace the suppliers of husk during the course of search and seizure

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. M/S R.R.ENERGY LTD.,, RAIGARH(C.G)

In the result, cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 are allowed and cross objections filed for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and...

ITA 230/BIL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jan 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CITDR
Section 133(6)Section 68

bogus bills of husk purchase for the purpose of entry in the books of accounts. Enquiries conducted to trace the suppliers of husk during the course of search and seizure

MUSADDILAL MANSARAM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., BILASPUR,BILASPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), BILASPUR, BILASPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 160/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 160/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(a)Section 151Section 153CSection 50C(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

purchase price as per section 50C of the Act, by applying a 10% tolerance limit retrospectively, and further erred in holding that the correct provision applicable was section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act instead of section 69, despite the fact that section 56(2)(vii)(b) is applicable only to individuals and Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs) for Assessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1(1), BILASPUR vs. MUSADDILAL MANSARAM INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. , BILASPUR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed, whereas the appeal of revenue stands dismissed

ITA 153/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 160/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(a)Section 151Section 153CSection 50C(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

purchase price as per section 50C of the Act, by applying a 10% tolerance limit retrospectively, and further erred in holding that the correct provision applicable was section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act instead of section 69, despite the fact that section 56(2)(vii)(b) is applicable only to individuals and Hindu Undivided Families (HUFs) for Assessment

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), BHILAI vs. NIKHIL MITTAL, BHILAI

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

ITA 656/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.656/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri S.R Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 250(4)

search and seizure action was conducted u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) in the case of Hanumant Trading and H.K Group on 19.02.2020. In his statement recorded on oath, Shri Mithilesh Kumar Tiwari, proprietor of M/s. H.K Enterprises has provided accommodation entries of bogus purchases

AGRAWAL INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED ,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, RAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 11/RPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.10 & 11/Rpr/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Agrawal Infrabuild Private Limited, Vs Acit, Central Circle-Ii, Raipur 1St Floor, V.R.Plaza, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aafca 6636 C (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Nema & Gagan Tiwari, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 153A(1)Section 68

bogus share application money u/s 68. The addition made by the A.O. and confirmed by by Ld CIT-A, were unjustified, unwarranted and uncalled for. 9. In continuation, Ld AR further drew our attention to the submission of the assessee before the Ld AO during the post search assessment proceedings submitted on 13.11.2018, the same is extracted as under

AGRAWAL INFRABUILD PRIVATE LIMITED ,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, RAIPUR

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 10/RPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur30 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita Nos.10 & 11/Rpr/2020 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Agrawal Infrabuild Private Limited, Vs Acit, Central Circle-Ii, Raipur 1St Floor, V.R.Plaza, Bilaspur Pan No. :Aafca 6636 C (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Nema & Gagan Tiwari, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR
Section 153A(1)Section 68

bogus share application money u/s 68. The addition made by the A.O. and confirmed by by Ld CIT-A, were unjustified, unwarranted and uncalled for. 9. In continuation, Ld AR further drew our attention to the submission of the assessee before the Ld AO during the post search assessment proceedings submitted on 13.11.2018, the same is extracted as under

SARTHAK ISPAT PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 516/RPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A No. 14 & Ita Nos. 513, 514, 515, 516 & 517/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 250

seizure proceedings and post search investigation, the GP rate @5% on unaccounted sale and purchase was offered by the assessee company, but not acceptable. Therefore, the rate of GP is taken at 8% on the total unaccounted sale of the assessee and the same is treated as unaccounted income of the assessee for respective assessment years, as under

SARTHAK ISPAT PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 515/RPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A No. 14 & Ita Nos. 513, 514, 515, 516 & 517/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 250

seizure proceedings and post search investigation, the GP rate @5% on unaccounted sale and purchase was offered by the assessee company, but not acceptable. Therefore, the rate of GP is taken at 8% on the total unaccounted sale of the assessee and the same is treated as unaccounted income of the assessee for respective assessment years, as under

SARTHAK ISPAT PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 513/RPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A No. 14 & Ita Nos. 513, 514, 515, 516 & 517/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 250

seizure proceedings and post search investigation, the GP rate @5% on unaccounted sale and purchase was offered by the assessee company, but not acceptable. Therefore, the rate of GP is taken at 8% on the total unaccounted sale of the assessee and the same is treated as unaccounted income of the assessee for respective assessment years, as under

SARTHAK ISPAT PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 517/RPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A No. 14 & Ita Nos. 513, 514, 515, 516 & 517/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 250

seizure proceedings and post search investigation, the GP rate @5% on unaccounted sale and purchase was offered by the assessee company, but not acceptable. Therefore, the rate of GP is taken at 8% on the total unaccounted sale of the assessee and the same is treated as unaccounted income of the assessee for respective assessment years, as under

SARTHAK ISPAT PVT. LTD., RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 514/RPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A No. 14 & Ita Nos. 513, 514, 515, 516 & 517/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2019-20)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 250

seizure proceedings and post search investigation, the GP rate @5% on unaccounted sale and purchase was offered by the assessee company, but not acceptable. Therefore, the rate of GP is taken at 8% on the total unaccounted sale of the assessee and the same is treated as unaccounted income of the assessee for respective assessment years, as under

KUSH KEDIA vs. A.C.I.T. 2(1), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 106/BIL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Mar 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 105 & 106/Rpr/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2005-06 Kush Kedia Kedia Bhawan, Mandi Road, Balodabazar.Dist. Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aklpk5127B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur. (C.G.) ……""यथ" /Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT D.R
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

bogus loans from the aforesaid persons, therefore, the Assessing Officer had rightly assumed jurisdiction and framed the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.153C of the Act. Rebutting the claim of the assessee that no addition was called for considering the merits of the case, for the reason that the Assessing Officer had observed that the bank accounts of the employees were

KUSH KEDIA vs. A.C.I.T. 2(1), RAIPUR (CG)

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 105/BIL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Mar 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 105 & 106/Rpr/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2005-06 Kush Kedia Kedia Bhawan, Mandi Road, Balodabazar.Dist. Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Aklpk5127B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax-2(1), Raipur. (C.G.) ……""यथ" /Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT D.R
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

bogus loans from the aforesaid persons, therefore, the Assessing Officer had rightly assumed jurisdiction and framed the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s.153C of the Act. Rebutting the claim of the assessee that no addition was called for considering the merits of the case, for the reason that the Assessing Officer had observed that the bank accounts of the employees were

ANIL KUMAR JAIN,RAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 584/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur06 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.584 & 585/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20 Anil Kumar Jain 34, Maruti Life Style, Ravi Shankar University, S.O, Raipur-492 010 Pan: Ahypj7657H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Bilaspur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 3

search and seizure operation u/s. 3 Anil Kumar Jain Vs. ACIT (Central), Bilaspur ITA Nos.584 & 585/RPR/2025 132 of the Act was conducted on the residential/business premises of the assessee on 19.02.2020. In response to the notice u/s.153A of the Act, the assessee filed return of income declaring income at Rs.8,13,000/-. That in response to the statutory notices issued