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.

195 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 17(2)(iii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,650Delhi1,305Jaipur396Kolkata348Ahmedabad234Chennai231Surat195Bangalore191Chandigarh184Pune140Karnataka117Hyderabad111Indore107Raipur80Amritsar76Nagpur74Rajkot68Cochin59Guwahati43Lucknow43Visakhapatnam38Calcutta38Cuttack32Agra24Jodhpur23Allahabad22Patna10Telangana9SC6Varanasi6Panaji5Jabalpur2Gauhati2Ranchi1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)95Addition to Income88Section 271(1)(c)77Section 14746Section 14833Bogus Purchases30Disallowance27Section 143(2)25Limitation/Time-bar

BALMUKUND M VAISHNAV,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT

ITA 205/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.204/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), Vs. Balmukund M. Vaishnav, Surat. 5B/1054, Ramnanth Mahadev Ni Sheri, Haripura, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aokpv5065Q (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.205/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2013-14) Balmukund M. Vaishnav, Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(3)(7), 5B/1054, Ramnanth Mahadev Ni Surat. Sheri, Haripura, Surat – 395009. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aokpv5065Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 69C

bogus and was only to suppress the profit of the beneficiaries which is substantiated by the statement on oath given by the entry provider. (iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A), Surat ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. It is, therefore, prayed that the order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MAHAVEER SHANTILAL JAIN, SURAT

ITA 453/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed

Showing 1–20 of 195 · Page 1 of 10

...
18
Section 25017
Section 6817
Section 142(1)15
ITAT Surat
25 Sept 2023
AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.453/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Mahaveer Shantilal Jain, Ward-2(3)(8), Prop. M/S Mukesh Diamonds, 1St Surat. Office No.401, Floor, H.No.5/1171/72/73/1090, New Dtc, Hath Falia, Haripura, Surat – 395009. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aqupj6439L Appellant By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Date Of Hearing 08/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A), Surat ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Surat may be set-aside and that of the Assessing Officer’s order may be restored.” 3. The Assessee

SHRI NARAYAN TULSIRAM SHARMA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT

In the result, four appeals of Revenue are partly allowed whereas four assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 265/SRT/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)

17. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer has not rebutted or discarded the material evidence furnished by assessee nor doubted the sales. Further, the Assessing Officer has not made any efforts to find out whether Pravin Kumar Jain is a proprietor / partner or director of the concern from whom the assessee made purchases. The assessee claimed that

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT vs. ASHISH MOHAN MAHAWAR, SURAT

In the result, four appeals of Revenue are partly allowed whereas four assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 122/SRT/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)

17. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer has not rebutted or discarded the material evidence furnished by assessee nor doubted the sales. Further, the Assessing Officer has not made any efforts to find out whether Pravin Kumar Jain is a proprietor / partner or director of the concern from whom the assessee made purchases. The assessee claimed that

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT vs. DILKHUSH ANNRAJ BABEL, SURAT

In the result, four appeals of Revenue are partly allowed whereas four assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 289/SRT/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)

17. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer has not rebutted or discarded the material evidence furnished by assessee nor doubted the sales. Further, the Assessing Officer has not made any efforts to find out whether Pravin Kumar Jain is a proprietor / partner or director of the concern from whom the assessee made purchases. The assessee claimed that

SHRI NAVRATAN SINGH JAIN,,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(8),, SURAT

In the result, four appeals of Revenue are partly allowed whereas four assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 258/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)

17. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer has not rebutted or discarded the material evidence furnished by assessee nor doubted the sales. Further, the Assessing Officer has not made any efforts to find out whether Pravin Kumar Jain is a proprietor / partner or director of the concern from whom the assessee made purchases. The assessee claimed that

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(8),, SURAT vs. SHRI NAVRATAN JAIN,, MUMBAI

In the result, four appeals of Revenue are partly allowed whereas four assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 201/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)

17. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer has not rebutted or discarded the material evidence furnished by assessee nor doubted the sales. Further, the Assessing Officer has not made any efforts to find out whether Pravin Kumar Jain is a proprietor / partner or director of the concern from whom the assessee made purchases. The assessee claimed that

SHRI NARAYAN LAL SHARMA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT

In the result, four appeals of Revenue are partly allowed whereas four assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 19/SRT/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)

17. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer has not rebutted or discarded the material evidence furnished by assessee nor doubted the sales. Further, the Assessing Officer has not made any efforts to find out whether Pravin Kumar Jain is a proprietor / partner or director of the concern from whom the assessee made purchases. The assessee claimed that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 (3) (7), SURAT vs. DILKHUSH BABEL, SURAT

In the result, four appeals of Revenue are partly allowed whereas four assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 1/SRT/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)

17. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer has not rebutted or discarded the material evidence furnished by assessee nor doubted the sales. Further, the Assessing Officer has not made any efforts to find out whether Pravin Kumar Jain is a proprietor / partner or director of the concern from whom the assessee made purchases. The assessee claimed that

ASHISH MOHAN MAHAWAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT

In the result, four appeals of Revenue are partly allowed whereas four assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 42/SRT/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)

17. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer has not rebutted or discarded the material evidence furnished by assessee nor doubted the sales. Further, the Assessing Officer has not made any efforts to find out whether Pravin Kumar Jain is a proprietor / partner or director of the concern from whom the assessee made purchases. The assessee claimed that

DILKHUSH BABEL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT

In the result, four appeals of Revenue are partly allowed whereas four assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 40/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)

17. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer has not rebutted or discarded the material evidence furnished by assessee nor doubted the sales. Further, the Assessing Officer has not made any efforts to find out whether Pravin Kumar Jain is a proprietor / partner or director of the concern from whom the assessee made purchases. The assessee claimed that

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT vs. DILKHUSH BABEL, SURAT

In the result, four appeals of Revenue are partly allowed whereas four assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 123/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)

17. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer has not rebutted or discarded the material evidence furnished by assessee nor doubted the sales. Further, the Assessing Officer has not made any efforts to find out whether Pravin Kumar Jain is a proprietor / partner or director of the concern from whom the assessee made purchases. The assessee claimed that

SHRI NAVRATAN SINGH JAIN,,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(8),, SURAT

In the result, four appeals of Revenue are partly allowed whereas four assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 105/SRT/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)

17. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer has not rebutted or discarded the material evidence furnished by assessee nor doubted the sales. Further, the Assessing Officer has not made any efforts to find out whether Pravin Kumar Jain is a proprietor / partner or director of the concern from whom the assessee made purchases. The assessee claimed that

DILKHUSH BABEL,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT

In the result, four appeals of Revenue are partly allowed whereas four assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 41/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)

17. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer has not rebutted or discarded the material evidence furnished by assessee nor doubted the sales. Further, the Assessing Officer has not made any efforts to find out whether Pravin Kumar Jain is a proprietor / partner or director of the concern from whom the assessee made purchases. The assessee claimed that

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT vs. DILKHUSH BABEL, SURAT

In the result, four appeals of Revenue are partly allowed whereas four assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 124/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)

17. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer has not rebutted or discarded the material evidence furnished by assessee nor doubted the sales. Further, the Assessing Officer has not made any efforts to find out whether Pravin Kumar Jain is a proprietor / partner or director of the concern from whom the assessee made purchases. The assessee claimed that

DILKHUSH BABEL,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT

In the result, four appeals of Revenue are partly allowed whereas four assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 538/SRT/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)

17. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer has not rebutted or discarded the material evidence furnished by assessee nor doubted the sales. Further, the Assessing Officer has not made any efforts to find out whether Pravin Kumar Jain is a proprietor / partner or director of the concern from whom the assessee made purchases. The assessee claimed that

DILKHUSH BABEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT

In the result, four appeals of Revenue are partly allowed whereas four assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 261/SRT/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)

17. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer has not rebutted or discarded the material evidence furnished by assessee nor doubted the sales. Further, the Assessing Officer has not made any efforts to find out whether Pravin Kumar Jain is a proprietor / partner or director of the concern from whom the assessee made purchases. The assessee claimed that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI NARAYAN LAL SHARMA, SURAT

In the result, four appeals of Revenue are partly allowed whereas four assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 88/SRT/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)

17. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer has not rebutted or discarded the material evidence furnished by assessee nor doubted the sales. Further, the Assessing Officer has not made any efforts to find out whether Pravin Kumar Jain is a proprietor / partner or director of the concern from whom the assessee made purchases. The assessee claimed that

SHRI NAVRATAN SINGH JAIN,,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(8),, SURAT

In the result, four appeals of Revenue are partly allowed whereas four assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 259/SRT/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)

17. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer has not rebutted or discarded the material evidence furnished by assessee nor doubted the sales. Further, the Assessing Officer has not made any efforts to find out whether Pravin Kumar Jain is a proprietor / partner or director of the concern from whom the assessee made purchases. The assessee claimed that

DILKHUSH BABEL,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3)(7), SURAT

In the result, four appeals of Revenue are partly allowed whereas four assessee’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 260/SRT/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)

17. The Ld. CIT(A) held that the Assessing Officer has not rebutted or discarded the material evidence furnished by assessee nor doubted the sales. Further, the Assessing Officer has not made any efforts to find out whether Pravin Kumar Jain is a proprietor / partner or director of the concern from whom the assessee made purchases. The assessee claimed that