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.

303 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 25clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,098Delhi1,680Jaipur531Kolkata464Chennai387Ahmedabad363Surat303Bangalore288Pune157Hyderabad157Chandigarh153Indore143Karnataka123Raipur99Rajkot97Amritsar88Nagpur77Visakhapatnam66Cochin63Lucknow48Guwahati42Calcutta41Cuttack39Agra33Allahabad31Jodhpur28Patna23Ranchi18Telangana12Varanasi7Jabalpur6Panaji5SC4Dehradun4Gauhati2Bombay1

Key Topics

Addition to Income92Section 143(3)81Section 271(1)(c)79Section 14853Bogus Purchases49Section 14745Disallowance25Section 6822Penalty19

INCOME TAX OFFICER, ANAVIL BUSINESS CENTRE, ADAJAN vs. ABHISHEK NAVNIT DOSHI , MAHIDHARPURA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 502/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Ito, Abhishek Navnit Doshi, 405, Income Tax Office, Anavil 204/205, 2Nd Floor, 6/1911-12, Business Centre, Hazira Road, Vs. Jin Shanti Bldg. Mahidharpura, Adajan, Surat-395003. Surat-395009. Pan No. Afhpd 0064 M Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Sapnesh Sheth, Advocate

purchases from bogus parties was liable to be added in the hands of the from bogus parties was liable to be added in the hands of the from bogus parties was liable to be added in the hands of the Assessee, reversing the order passed by the Hon'ble ITAT that Assessee, reversing the order passed

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

Showing 1–20 of 303 · Page 1 of 16

...
Section 143(2)15
Search & Seizure15
Limitation/Time-bar15
ITA 124/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed
ITAT Surat
13 Apr 2022
AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)

section 145 of the Act as recorded above that no submission was made by either of the parties on this ground as well. During assessment the assessing officer 18 held that the purchase shown by assessee in the books of account is bogus. Mere filing evidence in support of purchase and showing payments through account payee cheque cannot

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)

section 145 of the Act as recorded above that no submission was made by either of the parties on this ground as well. During assessment the assessing officer 18 held that the purchase shown by assessee in the books of account is bogus. Mere filing evidence in support of purchase and showing payments through account payee cheque cannot

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)

section 145 of the Act as recorded above that no submission was made by either of the parties on this ground as well. During assessment the assessing officer 18 held that the purchase shown by assessee in the books of account is bogus. Mere filing evidence in support of purchase and showing payments through account payee cheque cannot

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)

section 145 of the Act as recorded above that no submission was made by either of the parties on this ground as well. During assessment the assessing officer 18 held that the purchase shown by assessee in the books of account is bogus. Mere filing evidence in support of purchase and showing payments through account payee cheque cannot

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)

section 145 of the Act as recorded above that no submission was made by either of the parties on this ground as well. During assessment the assessing officer 18 held that the purchase shown by assessee in the books of account is bogus. Mere filing evidence in support of purchase and showing payments through account payee cheque cannot

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)

section 145 of the Act as recorded above that no submission was made by either of the parties on this ground as well. During assessment the assessing officer 18 held that the purchase shown by assessee in the books of account is bogus. Mere filing evidence in support of purchase and showing payments through account payee cheque cannot

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)

section 145 of the Act as recorded above that no submission was made by either of the parties on this ground as well. During assessment the assessing officer 18 held that the purchase shown by assessee in the books of account is bogus. Mere filing evidence in support of purchase and showing payments through account payee cheque cannot

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)

section 145 of the Act as recorded above that no submission was made by either of the parties on this ground as well. During assessment the assessing officer 18 held that the purchase shown by assessee in the books of account is bogus. Mere filing evidence in support of purchase and showing payments through account payee cheque cannot

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)

section 145 of the Act as recorded above that no submission was made by either of the parties on this ground as well. During assessment the assessing officer 18 held that the purchase shown by assessee in the books of account is bogus. Mere filing evidence in support of purchase and showing payments through account payee cheque cannot

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)

section 145 of the Act as recorded above that no submission was made by either of the parties on this ground as well. During assessment the assessing officer 18 held that the purchase shown by assessee in the books of account is bogus. Mere filing evidence in support of purchase and showing payments through account payee cheque cannot

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)

section 145 of the Act as recorded above that no submission was made by either of the parties on this ground as well. During assessment the assessing officer 18 held that the purchase shown by assessee in the books of account is bogus. Mere filing evidence in support of purchase and showing payments through account payee cheque cannot

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)

section 145 of the Act as recorded above that no submission was made by either of the parties on this ground as well. During assessment the assessing officer 18 held that the purchase shown by assessee in the books of account is bogus. Mere filing evidence in support of purchase and showing payments through account payee cheque cannot

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)

section 145 of the Act as recorded above that no submission was made by either of the parties on this ground as well. During assessment the assessing officer 18 held that the purchase shown by assessee in the books of account is bogus. Mere filing evidence in support of purchase and showing payments through account payee cheque cannot

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)

section 145 of the Act as recorded above that no submission was made by either of the parties on this ground as well. During assessment the assessing officer 18 held that the purchase shown by assessee in the books of account is bogus. Mere filing evidence in support of purchase and showing payments through account payee cheque cannot

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)

section 145 of the Act as recorded above that no submission was made by either of the parties on this ground as well. During assessment the assessing officer 18 held that the purchase shown by assessee in the books of account is bogus. Mere filing evidence in support of purchase and showing payments through account payee cheque cannot

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)

section 145 of the Act as recorded above that no submission was made by either of the parties on this ground as well. During assessment the assessing officer 18 held that the purchase shown by assessee in the books of account is bogus. Mere filing evidence in support of purchase and showing payments through account payee cheque cannot

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)

section 145 of the Act as recorded above that no submission was made by either of the parties on this ground as well. During assessment the assessing officer 18 held that the purchase shown by assessee in the books of account is bogus. Mere filing evidence in support of purchase and showing payments through account payee cheque cannot

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)

section 145 of the Act as recorded above that no submission was made by either of the parties on this ground as well. During assessment the assessing officer 18 held that the purchase shown by assessee in the books of account is bogus. Mere filing evidence in support of purchase and showing payments through account payee cheque cannot

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

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)

section 145 of the Act as recorded above that no submission was made by either of the parties on this ground as well. During assessment the assessing officer 18 held that the purchase shown by assessee in the books of account is bogus. Mere filing evidence in support of purchase and showing payments through account payee cheque cannot