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.

10 results for “bogus purchases”+ Deductionclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,438Delhi1,138Kolkata441Jaipur389Chennai356Ahmedabad280Bangalore184Pune165Hyderabad155Chandigarh147Surat132Indore108Raipur93Cochin62Nagpur61Visakhapatnam58Cuttack56Rajkot52Lucknow45Amritsar43Allahabad34Guwahati30Agra26Jodhpur23Karnataka13Ranchi10Dehradun9Patna8Varanasi8Panaji5Telangana5SC4Jabalpur3Calcutta3ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)10Section 2637Section 153A7Addition to Income7Section 1485Section 1475Section 403Bogus/Accommodation Entry3Deduction3TDS

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

purchases are bogus just because the payments have been made on behalf of the seller to the third parties. It is the seller who provides the account for the transfer of the funds and the assessee has no control over the accounts to which the payment is made. The assessee is only paying

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR vs. M/S SURAJ SOLUTION PVT LTD, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

ITA 72/RAN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi
3
Search & Seizure3
Section 143(2)2
29 Nov 2018
AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

deduction of tax, payment made to the SHPL cannot be said to be an accommodation entry thus, bogus. The reasoning and conclusion of the AO is devoid of merit and thus cannot survive. In view of the aforesaid, disallowance made on account of the clinker handling charges to M/s Subshree Hirise Pvt. Ltd. is directed to be deleted.” 9. Similarly

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE , JAMSHEDPUR vs. M/S SURAJ SOLUTIONS PVT LTD , JAMSHDPUR

In the result, both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the

ITA 184/RAN/2017[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Nov 2018

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

deduction of tax, payment made to the SHPL cannot be said to be an accommodation entry thus, bogus. The reasoning and conclusion of the AO is devoid of merit and thus cannot survive. In view of the aforesaid, disallowance made on account of the clinker handling charges to M/s Subshree Hirise Pvt. Ltd. is directed to be deleted.” 9. Similarly

ITO WARD-1(40, JSR vs. M/S ANAND VIHAR CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD, JSR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross

ITA 335/RAN/2017[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 Nov 2018

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2014-2015 Ito, Ward-1(4), Jamshedpur Vs M/S Anand Vihar Construction Pvt. Ltd., 12A, Rajendra Nagar, Near Durga Puja Maidan, Sakchi, Jamshedpur- 831001 Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R Respondent (Appellant) .. & Co No.02/Ran/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-2015 M/S Anand Vihar Construction Vs Ito, Ward-1(4), Pvt. Ltd., Jamshedpur 12A, Rajendra Nagar, Near Durga Puja Maidan, Sakchi, Jamshedpur-831001 Pan No. : Aaacc 7476 R Respondent (Appellant) .. Revenue By Shri A.K.Mohanty,Jcit(Jr. Dr) Assessee By Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv. Date Of Hearing : 27.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2018

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

deduction of TDS and similarly ld. DR argued that the CIT(A) has granted relief of material purchased without any basis and relief granted in respect of Rs.71,128/- out of the addition of Rs.6,10,411/-. Ld. DR further supported the order of AO and prayed for allowing the appeal of the Revenue. 7. On the other hand

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

bogus persons / entities as named in the assessment order. Hence the total amount of credit in the said current account was stood at Rs.34,13,13,634/- which is inclusive of cash deposits of Rs,7,20,46,000/- . These amounts were transferred to various ultimate beneficiaries through RTGS/Cheque 3 AY: 2013-14 M/s Chintpurni Steel

REENA KHETAN,KODERMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KODERMA

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 230/RAN/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi19 Aug 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: S/ S/Hri George Mathan & Ratnesh Nandan Sahayratnesh Nandan Sahayratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year : 2012-13 Reena Khetan, M/S. Anand Reena Khetan, M/S. Anand Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - Income Tax Officer, Ward Vihar, Ranchi Patna Road, Vihar, Ranchi Patna Road, 1(5)Koderma Jhumritelaiya, Jhumritelaiya, Koderma, Koderma, Jharkhand Pan/Gir No. .Adlpk 5070 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv Devesh Poddar, Adv Revenue By : Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Revenue By Ld Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/08/202 2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/08/2 2025 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), Cit(A), Nfac, Nfac, Delhi Delhi Dated Dated 28.8.2023 In In Appeal Appeal No.Cit(A) No.Cit(A) Hazaribag/10153/2019 Hazaribag/10153/2019-20 For The Assessment Year 2012-13 13. 2. Shri Devesh Poddar, Shri Devesh Poddar, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee. Shri Ed For The Assessee. Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Khubchand T Pandya, Ld Sr Dr Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue. Represented On Behalf Of The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya

purchase of shares has not been disputed or doubted however the sale has been disputed in the current year to be bogus and in the nature of accommodation entries. The Hon'ble High Court P a g e 4 | 6 Assessment Year : 2012-13 of has dealt with the identical issue in the above referred decision. We, therefore, following

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)

deducted at source: d) Particulars of the recipient were duly furnished; We are, as such, of the opinion that the views expressed by the learned Tribunal are unexceptionable. We, therefore refuse to admit the appeal. The appeal is thus dismissed.” 4. Similar view was taken by the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nangalia Fabrics

MOTOREX FINANCE PVT LTD ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-4(1), KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 115/KOL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaymotorex Finance Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O., 1A, Grant Lane, Kolkata-700012 (West Ward 4(1), Vs. Bengal). Kolkata. Pan No. Aaccm 1042 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

bogus transactions and the interest income was added as an unexplained income of the assessee. The ld. AR drew our attention to page No. 14 of the paper book which is a copy of the balance sheet and the P&L account of the assessee. The ld. AR also drew our attention to page No.16 which was the details

PADAM KUMAE JAIN,RANCHI vs. CIT, CENTRAL, PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 289/RAN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.289/Ran/2019 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Padam Kumar Jain Vs. Cit, Central, Cr Building, Beer Chand Patel Marg, Patna – 800001. Ratanlalsurajmal Compound, Main Road, Ranchi – 834001, Jharkhand "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abrpj 0001 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Chaudhury & Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Inderjeet Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 263

purchases of Rs. 65,33,41,701/-. (xi)Compensation paid to employees of Rs. 2,17,23,268/-. (xii).Proof of service tax of Rs. 6,89,59,617/- paid during the year. (xiii). “Advertisement” expense along with proof of TDS on the same. (xiv). “Other expenses” of Rs. 45,13,68,375/-. (xv).Amount debited

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)

purchased land measuring 0.67 acre for a consideration of ₹42,30,000, whereas the stamp duty valuation was ₹1,20,02,000, and the difference of ₹77,72,000 was treated as income. 3. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee raised specific legal grounds, challenging the validity of reopening under section 147, as well as grounds on merits. However