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.

8 results for “bogus purchases”+ Business Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,150Delhi1,233Kolkata350Jaipur325Ahmedabad307Chennai288Bangalore187Chandigarh183Surat135Hyderabad127Pune123Raipur117Indore107Rajkot100Amritsar79Visakhapatnam65Cochin62Nagpur61Guwahati60Lucknow57Agra39Jodhpur35Patna34Allahabad33Cuttack18Dehradun11Jabalpur8Ranchi8Varanasi7Panaji3

Key Topics

Section 143(3)10Section 1489Addition to Income7Section 1476Section 2503Section 115B3Section 692Section 69A2Unexplained Money2

SRI KAMLESH KUMAR SINGH,DALTONGANJ vs. ACIT,CIR-1, RANCHI

ITA 53/RAN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 49/Ran/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Smt. Madhu Singh,...................................Appellant Hamidganj, Daltonganj-822101 [Pan: Bbjps0426B] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-1, Ranchi & I.T.A. Nos. 53 & 54/Ran/2017 Assessment Years: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 Shri Kamlesh Kumar Singh,...................Appellant Hamidganj, Daltonganj-822101 [Pan: Afzps8288J] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-1, Ranchi Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.K. Koley, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 22, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 7Th, 2023 1 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Smt. Madhu Singh & Ita Nos. 53 & 54/Ran/2017 Assessment Years: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 Shri Kamlesh Kr. Singh

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234A

purchased, copies of bills, receipt details, vouchers filed before the lower authorities. Thus taking a consistent view since the facts remain the same, we are inclined to hold that the alleged income is earned from carrying out business activity and is to be assessed as business income and ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in treating the amount of Rs.12

Cash Deposit2
Reassessment2
Disallowance2

M/S MANIKARAN POWER LTD,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 471/RAN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayit(Ss)A No. 01/Ran/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) A.C.I.T., Manikaran Power Limited, Central Circle-2, Manikaran Tower, Kilburn Colony, Vs. Ranchi. P.O. Hinoo, Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) J.C.I.T. (In Situ), Pan No. Aaecm 4555 F Ranchi. Revenue/ Appellant Respondent/ Assessee Manikaran Power Limited, A.C.I.T., Manikaran Tower, Kilburn Colony, Central Circle-2, Vs. P.O. Hinoo, Ranchi-834002 Ranchi. (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaecm 4555 F Revenue/ Appellant Respondent/ Assessee

business transactions. At this instance, we would like to mention that with respect to purchase of power from M/s BT DB Power Limited, the assessee in totality had made a purchase of ₹ 1,94,59,63,834/- whereas the Assessing Officer has disallowed a part payment of the same as bogus. Same is the condition with respect of the other

KARNI MANSION PVT LTD,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), JAMSHEDPUR

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 344/RAN/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi15 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), where the appeal of the assessee was dismissed due to non-prosecution by upholding the order of the AO. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising various grounds. However, the primary contention of the assessee is that the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) without giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the order of Ld. CIT(A) may be quashed.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

business of real estate and filed its return of income for the AY 2012-13 declaring total income of Rs. ‘Nil’. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS and accordingly assessment was completed on 30.03.2015 accepting the return of income filed by the assessee. However, the case of the assessee was reopened

ACIT, C.C.-1, RANCHI vs. M/S CHINTPURNI STEEL PVT. LTD.,, RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 32/RAN/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 69A

business and it was only doing sale and purchase of steel scraps. Accordingly the AO came to the conclusion that the money received from Shree Mahalaxmi Steels is bogus and is accommodation entry and accordingly the same was added to the income

SHAH BROTHERS,CHAIBASA vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 134/RAN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayshah Brothers, A.C.I.T., Thana Lane, Chaibasa-833201 Central Circle-1, Vs. (Jharkhand) Ranchi. Pan No. Aazfs 7498 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)

bogus. Assessee made payment of commission through account payee cheques for sales canvassed by the party and also in consideration of the collection 5 Shah Brothers Vs ACIT recovered from purchaser. Payments cannot be unreasonable particularly when M/s. Shree Shantinath Silk Industries is not related to the assessee and so even disallowance made by CIT(A) is not proper

KULDIP SINGH,RANCHI vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 180/RAN/2025[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.180/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kuldip Singh…………………….……….……...................……….……Appellant The Avenue Vishnupuri Marg, Upper Burdwan Compound, Lalpur, Ranchi- 834001. [Pan: Agjps6921P] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle-1, Ranchi…...…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kailash Gautam, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 10, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 06.03.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

business of land and contract work. The assessee filed the return of income for the assessment year 2014–15 on 30.11.2014, declaring a total income of ₹40,80,800. The case was selected for scrutiny, and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, vide order dated 15.12.2016, accepting the returned income. Subsequently

BADRINATH SALES PRIVATE LIMITED,ADITYAPUR, WEST SINGHBHUM vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE 1 JSR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 414/RAN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi13 Feb 2026AY 2011-12
Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Income\nTax in ITA no 485(LKW) 2010 – In the said case since no stock\nregister was being maintained by the assessee, stock was\npresumed to be 11% of the turnover and the difference between\nsuch presumed stock and book value was added in the hands of\nthe assessee. Deleting such addition and upholding the order of\nthe

RANJIT PRASAD SAHU,BOKARO vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HAZARIBAGH

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 312/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Ranjit Prasad Sahu, A.C.I.T., Hosir, P.O. Lalpania, Dist.- Hazaribagh. Vs. Bokaro-829149 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Akkpk 9351 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 271ASection 69Section 69A

purchase of goods monthwise and the closing balance of stock monthwise and thus inference can be drawn that unaccounted demonetized currency available with the assessee has been introduced in the books of account in the form of cash receipts from bogus bills. 4. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), this appeal has been preferred by the assessee before