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.

5 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 2(31)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,200Delhi1,394Jaipur444Kolkata386Chennai317Ahmedabad302Bangalore227Surat148Chandigarh145Hyderabad141Karnataka118Pune117Indore115Amritsar83Rajkot79Raipur63Cochin60Nagpur49Lucknow46Guwahati44Calcutta41Visakhapatnam40Allahabad35Agra31Jodhpur25Cuttack20Telangana11Patna9Varanasi7Ranchi5Panaji5Jabalpur4SC3Dehradun2Orissa2Gauhati1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 2637Section 153A7Section 143(3)5Section 685Section 41(1)4Addition to Income4Section 115B3Section 692Section 133(6)2

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

Penalty2

SHRI NAVNEET MODI,RANCHI vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 106/RAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi30 Oct 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg, Jm & Shri L.P. Sahu, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.106/Ran/2019 & आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.53/Ran/2019 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2015-2016 & 2013-2014) Shri Navneet Modi, Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Ranchi Modi House, Kanke Dam Side Road, Kanke, Ranchi स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan No. : Actpm 1511 F (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. यनधागररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Inderjeet Singh, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Inderjeet Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

bogus warranting addition in the income of the assessee. It is again submitted that there is no dispute that the goods have been purchased and the genuinity of the purchase have not been disputed and it was because that the provisions of section 40A(3) have been applied. Moreover, the assessee maintained day-to-day stock register wherein

ACIT, CIRCLE-3, RANCHI vs. SHRI SUMIT RAMSISARIA, RANCHI

ITA 222/RAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi11 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

2,00,000/- in the name of M/s Auto Car and the part liability of Rs.12,931/- in the name of M/s Balaji Batteries Storage have ceased / remitted. Therefore, addition to the extent of Rs.2,12,931/- i hereby confirmed u/s 41(1) of the I.T. Act and remaining addition of Rs.3,61,98,164/- is hereby deleted

DCIT CIR-3(1), JAMSHEDPUR vs. M/S YASH INFRATECH PRIVATE LIMITED , JAMSHEDPUR

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

ITA 155/RAN/2017[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi09 Nov 2022

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

section 131 of I.T.Act, 1961 of Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal, Director of the assessee company in which he confirmed and accepted that the short term capital loss was bogus. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified on focusing at the sentence that "he was successful in bringing back his own accounted

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

Section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned order, confirmed the order of Assessing Officer on the ground that, though, the appellant had given the details of monthwise cash deposits in different bank accounts made during