BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

4 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 69Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai247Delhi241Jaipur96Ahmedabad64Chandigarh61Cochin58Chennai56Bangalore42Kolkata41Rajkot34Hyderabad27Agra19Surat16Pune12Lucknow12Nagpur9Jodhpur9Indore9Patna7Visakhapatnam4Raipur4Amritsar3Guwahati3Ranchi3Varanasi2Dehradun1Jabalpur1Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 69A10Section 1479Section 2637Section 686Section 143(2)4Addition to Income4Section 271(1)(c)3Section 143(3)2Cash Deposit2Demonetization

SARVESH BARDIA,RAJNANDGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, RAJNANDGAON

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

ITA 299/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.299/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sarvesh Bardia Bardia Niwas, Sadar Bazar, Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-491 441 Pan: Aqbpb3485F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

section 69A treating deposits of SBNs found in its bank account as unexplained money in hands of assessee. Without prejudice to the above, though the cash deposits which were claimed to have been generated out of sales is not acceptable, an amount of deposits in new currency amounting to Rs.5 lacs which was deposited by the appellant

2
Unexplained Cash Credit2

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE- 1(1), BHILAI vs. SHRI NITIN SANKHLA, DURG

In the result, grounds no 2 to 7 on this single issue of the appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 98/RPR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.98/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax- Vs Shri Nitin Sankhla 1(1), Bhilai 1St Floor, Navkar Bullion, Above Navin Jeweller, Jawahar Chowk, Durg Pan No. :Bbups 4874 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. : Shri Ravi Agarwal, Ca "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ila M. Parmar, Cit- Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/06/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

For Respondent: Shri Ila M. Parmar, CIT- DR
Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

bogus and new notes are genuine. h. AO has accepted cash sales of post demonetization period, i.e., January to March 2017. AO is blowing heat and cold in the same breath according to his convenience. i. Assessee has given a reasonable explanation according to his trade practice and therefore, it cannot be rejected unless AO brings on record something contrary

SOURABH AGRAWAL, RAIPUR,RAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 845/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.845/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sourabh Agrawal Prop. Sawaria Traders, Shop No.217, Samta Colony, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan: Apppa0229M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prafulla Pendse, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 44ASection 69A

section 69A of the income tax when the fact remains that the appellant was not liable under Law to maintain any books of accounts. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in sustaining addition of Rs.24,04,877/- in respect of entire sales instead of restricting the addition/ disallowance

SHRI VIJAY KUMAR PATEL,RAIPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RAIPUR-1, RAIPUR

ITA 212/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 212/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 68

69A, 69B, 69C and 69D for any previous year, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to tax payable under section 115BBE, a sum computed at a rate of 10% of the tax payable under clause (i) of sub section (1) of section 115BBE. In other words, penalty u/s 271AAC is applicable in this case instead