Search: bogus purchases | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

8 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 153Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi112 Mumbai85 Chandigarh58 Cochin57 Bangalore46 Amritsar39 Chennai22 Jaipur20 Allahabad17 Agra14 Nagpur12 Raipur8 Lucknow8 Dehradun6 Indore3 Ahmedabad3 Pune1 Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 14712 Section 25010 Section 1488 Section 153A6 Section 153C4 Section 694 Section 56(2)(vii)4 Section 143(3)3 Addition to Income3

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)

Unexplained Investment2

Limitation/Time-bar2

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

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

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

153D of the Act was duly complied with. It was further observed by the Hon’ble High Court that in a given case, it cannot be presumed on the mere say of the assessee that no application of mind was there while granting the approval. The Hon’ble High Court had further observed that the language used in the letter

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

153D of the Act was duly complied with. It was further observed by the Hon’ble High Court that in a given case, it cannot be presumed on the mere say of the assessee that no application of mind was there while granting the approval. The Hon’ble High Court had further observed that the language used in the letter

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

153D of the Act was duly complied with. It was further observed by the Hon’ble High Court that in a given case, it cannot be presumed on the mere say of the assessee that no application of mind was there while granting the approval. The Hon’ble High Court had further observed that the language used in the letter

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

153D of the Act was duly complied with. It was further observed by the Hon’ble High Court that in a given case, it cannot be presumed on the mere say of the assessee that no application of mind was there while granting the approval. The Hon’ble High Court had further observed that the language used in the letter

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

153D of the Act was duly complied with. It was further observed by the Hon’ble High Court that in a given case, it cannot be presumed on the mere say of the assessee that no application of mind was there while granting the approval. The Hon’ble High Court had further observed that the language used in the letter

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE-1), RAIPUR vs. SHRI GURPREET SINGH BHATIA, RAJNANDGAON

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue in IT(SS)A 01/RPR/2022, stands dismissed

ITA 17/RPR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./It(Ss)A 01/Rpr/2022 Cross Objection No. 02/Rpr/2023 (Arising Out Of It(Ss)A No. 01/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Years:2018-19) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax V M/S Merigold Impex, (Central Circle-I), S 35/75, Punjabi Colony, Katora Talab, Raipur, (C.G.) Raipur, (C.G.) Pan: Aasfm6747N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita 17/Rpr/2022 Cross Objection No. 03/Rpr/2023 (Arising Out Of Ita 17/Rpr/2022) (Assessment Years:2018-19) Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax V Shri Gurpreet Singh Bhatia, (Central Circle-I), S 1/2/1, Old Bus Stand Road, Raipur, (C.G.) Rajnandgaon, (C.G.) Pan: Aaspb5363R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Praveen Jain, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By : Shri Debashish Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 07-09-2023 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27-10-2023

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Lahiri, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

153D and other provisions of Income Tax is not proper and based on presumptions. Hence, entire assessment proceedings are void and same may kindly be quashed. 2. That the AO passing the Assessment Order did not have proper jurisdiction. Hence, entire assessment is void and bad in law. 3. That the Order passed