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.

34 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 253(5)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai452Delhi240Karnataka100Jaipur68Chennai40Kolkata39Ahmedabad36Surat34Indore31Chandigarh26Pune22Allahabad17Rajkot17Bangalore17Amritsar17Lucknow15Raipur11Visakhapatnam9Jodhpur9Varanasi5Panaji5Hyderabad2Cuttack1Guwahati1Nagpur1Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)77Section 143(3)25Addition to Income25Section 14821Section 14714Penalty13Section 25010Disallowance10Section 151(1)6

ITO, WARD -2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI MAYUR ASHESHBHAI JOSHI, SURAT

In the result the ground No

ITA 66/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)

5% of bogus purchases, the Ld. CIT(A) also relied on the judgment of jurisdictional ITAT, Surat and Ahmedabad. 10. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee as well as Revenue are in appeal before us. 11. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee states before the Bench that in the case of M/s. Sonu Dharmichand Bafna

THE ITO, WARD-2(3)(8),, SURAT vs. SHRI VRAJENDRA JAGJIVANDAS THAKKAR,, SURAT

In the result the ground No

ITA 62/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Showing 1–20 of 34 · Page 1 of 2

Section 254(1)6
Section 148A6
Limitation/Time-bar6
Section 143(3)

5% of bogus purchases, the Ld. CIT(A) also relied on the judgment of jurisdictional ITAT, Surat and Ahmedabad. 10. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee as well as Revenue are in appeal before us. 11. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee states before the Bench that in the case of M/s. Sonu Dharmichand Bafna

VRAJENDRA JAGJIVANDAS THAKKAR PROP. OF ADITI EXPORTS,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD- 2(3)(8), SURAT

In the result the ground No

ITA 168/SRT/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)

5% of bogus purchases, the Ld. CIT(A) also relied on the judgment of jurisdictional ITAT, Surat and Ahmedabad. 10. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee as well as Revenue are in appeal before us. 11. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee states before the Bench that in the case of M/s. Sonu Dharmichand Bafna

PARAG NARESHBHAI MEHTA PROP. OF DEEKSHA TRADING ,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(3)(8), , SURAT

In the result the ground No

ITA 169/SRT/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)

5% of bogus purchases, the Ld. CIT(A) also relied on the judgment of jurisdictional ITAT, Surat and Ahmedabad. 10. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee as well as Revenue are in appeal before us. 11. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee states before the Bench that in the case of M/s. Sonu Dharmichand Bafna

SONU DHARMICHAND BAFNA PROP. OF BRIGHT DIAMONDS,SURATY vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD- 2(3)(8), SURAT

In the result the ground No

ITA 167/SRT/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)

5% of bogus purchases, the Ld. CIT(A) also relied on the judgment of jurisdictional ITAT, Surat and Ahmedabad. 10. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee as well as Revenue are in appeal before us. 11. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee states before the Bench that in the case of M/s. Sonu Dharmichand Bafna

MAYUR ASHESHBHAI JOSHI PROP. SHRUSHTI ENTERPRISE,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD, - 2(3)(8), SURAT

In the result the ground No

ITA 170/SRT/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)

5% of bogus purchases, the Ld. CIT(A) also relied on the judgment of jurisdictional ITAT, Surat and Ahmedabad. 10. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee as well as Revenue are in appeal before us. 11. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee states before the Bench that in the case of M/s. Sonu Dharmichand Bafna

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI SONU DHARMICHAND BAFNA,, SURAT

In the result the ground No

ITA 48/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)

5% of bogus purchases, the Ld. CIT(A) also relied on the judgment of jurisdictional ITAT, Surat and Ahmedabad. 10. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee as well as Revenue are in appeal before us. 11. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee states before the Bench that in the case of M/s. Sonu Dharmichand Bafna

ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI PARAG NARESHBHAI MEHTA, SURAT

In the result the ground No

ITA 65/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)

5% of bogus purchases, the Ld. CIT(A) also relied on the judgment of jurisdictional ITAT, Surat and Ahmedabad. 10. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee as well as Revenue are in appeal before us. 11. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee states before the Bench that in the case of M/s. Sonu Dharmichand Bafna

SHRI RAVJIBHAI BECHARBHAI DHAMELIYA,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1(1), SURAT

In the result, assessee`s appeal for both the assessment years, that is,

ITA 239/SRT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri P. M. Jagasheth, CA and Shri Sapnesh Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jaikaran, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151(1)

5% of Rs.30,72,16,240/-, which comes to Rs.1,53,60,812/-. 16. Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Learned Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, prayed the Bench that since the assessee has raised the technical ground challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 239 & 304/SRT/2019 & 122 & 124/SRT/2020 Ravjibhai Bechabhai Dhameliya of the Act, which goes

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT vs. SHRI RAVJIBHAI BECHARBHAI DHAMELIYA,, SURAT

In the result, assessee`s appeal for both the assessment years, that is,

ITA 304/SRT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri P. M. Jagasheth, CA and Shri Sapnesh Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jaikaran, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151(1)

5% of Rs.30,72,16,240/-, which comes to Rs.1,53,60,812/-. 16. Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Learned Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, prayed the Bench that since the assessee has raised the technical ground challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 239 & 304/SRT/2019 & 122 & 124/SRT/2020 Ravjibhai Bechabhai Dhameliya of the Act, which goes

ACIT, CIRCLE-3(3), SURAT vs. SHRI RAVJIBHAI BECHARBHAI DHAMELIYA, SURAT

In the result, assessee`s appeal for both the assessment years, that is,

ITA 122/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri P. M. Jagasheth, CA and Shri Sapnesh Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jaikaran, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151(1)

5% of Rs.30,72,16,240/-, which comes to Rs.1,53,60,812/-. 16. Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Learned Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, prayed the Bench that since the assessee has raised the technical ground challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 239 & 304/SRT/2019 & 122 & 124/SRT/2020 Ravjibhai Bechabhai Dhameliya of the Act, which goes

SHRI RAVJIBHAI B DHAMELIYA,SURAT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, assessee`s appeal for both the assessment years, that is,

ITA 124/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble(Physical Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri P. M. Jagasheth, CA and Shri Sapnesh Sheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Airiju Jaikaran, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151(1)

5% of Rs.30,72,16,240/-, which comes to Rs.1,53,60,812/-. 16. Shri P.M. Jagasheth, Learned Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, prayed the Bench that since the assessee has raised the technical ground challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings under section 147/148 239 & 304/SRT/2019 & 122 & 124/SRT/2020 Ravjibhai Bechabhai Dhameliya of the Act, which goes

RAIYANI BROTHERS,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(4), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 8/SRT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.8/Srt/2021 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) M/S. Raiyani Brothers, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Dumaswala Compound, Near Ward-3(3)(4), Surat, Aaykar Sargam Doctor House, Hira Baug, Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat- Varachha Road, Surat – 395006. 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfr0702K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023

Section 143(3)Section 253(1)

section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relating to A.Y.2012-13 made on the 17.05.2019 vide ITA No.8/SRT/2021, which was communicated to us on 06.06.2019. Though this appeal should have been filed in the office of the Tribunal on or before the counting the period of sixty days from the date

MEENAXI GEMS PVT LTD,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(1)(4), SURAT, SURAT

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

ITA 612/SRT/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.612 & 613/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Hybrid Hearing) Meenaxi Gems Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 5/1108-A, 1167/68-B, Santok Ward – 1(1)(4), Diamonds Office No.106, Gurjar Surat Faliya, Haripura, Surat - 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcm4645B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/11/2025

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 17. The penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is based on the quantum addition of Rs.38,83,253/- treated as bogus purchases. In the quantum appeal, the Tribunal in ITA No.612/SRT/2025 (supra), decided above, has held that the purchases cannot be disallowed in entirety and restricted the addition

MEENAXI GEMS PVT LTD,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-1(1)(4), SURAT, SURAT

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

ITA 613/SRT/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Nov 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.612 & 613/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2007-08) (Hybrid Hearing) Meenaxi Gems Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 5/1108-A, 1167/68-B, Santok Ward – 1(1)(4), Diamonds Office No.106, Gurjar Surat Faliya, Haripura, Surat - 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcm4645B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Prakash Jhunjhunwala, Ar Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27/11/2025

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 17. The penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is based on the quantum addition of Rs.38,83,253/- treated as bogus purchases. In the quantum appeal, the Tribunal in ITA No.612/SRT/2025 (supra), decided above, has held that the purchases cannot be disallowed in entirety and restricted the addition

SANJAYBHAI DAMJIBHAI GOLAKIYA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the appellant is allowed

ITA 951/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.951/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Sanjaybhai Damjibhai Golakiya, Vs. The Assessment Unit, D-74, Vithalnagar Society, Hirabaug, Income-Tax Department, Varachha Road, Surat - 395006 Jurisdictional Ao: The Ito, Ward – 3(3)(1), Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Alopg2048R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025

Section 250Section 253(1)Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

Section 253(3) of the Act. The assessee has filed an affidavit giving reasons for delay in filing of appeal before the Tribunal. In the affidavit, it has been stated that the appellant filed appeal u/s 253(1) of the Act on 09.09.2024, vide ITA No.951/SRT/2024, against the order dated 15.02.2024, which was uploaded on the Income-tax e-filing

YOGENDRARAJ U. SINGHVI,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(8), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 459/SRT/2023[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Surat19 Oct 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.459/Srt/2023 (Ay 2007-08) (Hearing In Hybrid Mode) Yogendra Raj U Singhvi, Income Tax Officer-2(3)(8) Cts, 95/4/B-3-4/590, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Vs Village Dindoshi, Surat-395001 Oberoi Garden City, Flat No. 3902, Floor C-Wing, Meter Exquisite, Mumbai. Pan : Anjps 9745 G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

section 143(3) rws 147 dated 09.03.2015 made addition of Rs. 7.15 Crore on account of bogus purchases, which was 100% of the disputed purchases. On appeal before ld CIT(A), the addition was restricted to 5% of entire turnover shown in the profit and loss account. However, on further appeal before, Tribunal the disallowances / additions were restricted to 5

MANGHARAM MOOLCHAND VERMA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(3), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 765/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.765/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Mangharam Moolchand Verma Vs. Ito, 703, Smita Park, Sarela Wadi, Ward - 1(3)(3), Ghod Dod Road, Surat – 395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abcpv1629D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Respondent By Ms. Jayashree Thakur, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11/08/2025

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253(3)

bogus purchase. ITA No.765/SRT/2024 A.Y 2015-16 Mangharam M Verma 3.It is therefore prayed that the above disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A) may please be deleted. 4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal.” 3. The appeal filed

M/S. RUBY GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 613/SRT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.613/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Court Hearing) M/S Ruby Gems Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward- बनाम/ 10/15,Crown Plaza, 2(1)(1), Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, Vs. Salabatpura, Surat-395 002 Majura Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaecr 3885 P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By None राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 13/03/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 13/03/2025

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 271(1)(c)

purchase transaction. In view of the facts and merits of the case, the addition made by Ld. AO is liable to be deleted. 3.The Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before

MEENAXI GEMS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(4), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 13/SRT/2021[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Surat01 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Sainimeenaxi Gems Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O., 320, A, Panchratna, Opera House, Ward-1(1)(4), Vs. Mumbai-400004. Surat. Pan No. Aadcm 4645 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)

253/-) since regular profits corresponding to disputed purchase had already been offered to tax. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, and/or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 2. Perusal of record shows that the impugned order was passed by the ld. CIT(A) on 11/07/2017. However, the present appeal is filed