Search: bogus purchases | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

49 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 271(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai555 Delhi236 Jaipur88 Ahmedabad81 Bangalore63 Chennai55 Surat49 Indore46 Rajkot36 Kolkata32 Chandigarh30 Hyderabad30 Raipur29 Amritsar22 Pune22 Allahabad20 Guwahati18 Nagpur16 Lucknow14 Jodhpur9 Patna4 Agra3 Cuttack3 Visakhapatnam1 Dehradun1 Jabalpur1 Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)138 Addition to Income45 Penalty30 Bogus Purchases26 Section 14823 Section 143(3)18 Section 25013 Disallowance13 Section 27411

SANTOSH SINGH HUKAM SINGH KARNAWAT,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT

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

ITA 655/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

bogus purchases. 4. Thereafter, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated and the AO held that the assessee

PINKY MANISHKUMAR JARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee, in ITA No

Showing 1–20 of 49 · Page 1 of 3

ITA 281/SRT/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.280 To 282/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2009-10) (Physical Hearing) Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala, Vs. The Ito, 4/1710, Nawabwadi, Begampura, Ward – 2(2)(3), Surat – 395003. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahnpj7591D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 23/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

bogus purchases, normally, the name lender or fictitious seller charges a commission and issues sales entries as agreed. The payments are made in cheque and the entry provider returns the amount in cash, or in cheque through a circuitous way, after debiting / retaining his commission amount, ranging between 2 to 5%. But, when the inflation of purchases by the group

PINKY MANISHKUMAR JARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee, in ITA No

ITA 282/SRT/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.280 To 282/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2009-10) (Physical Hearing) Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala, Vs. The Ito, 4/1710, Nawabwadi, Begampura, Ward – 2(2)(3), Surat – 395003. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahnpj7591D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 23/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

bogus purchases, normally, the name lender or fictitious seller charges a commission and issues sales entries as agreed. The payments are made in cheque and the entry provider returns the amount in cash, or in cheque through a circuitous way, after debiting / retaining his commission amount, ranging between 2 to 5%. But, when the inflation of purchases by the group

PINKY MANISHKUMAR JARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), SURAT

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee, in ITA No

ITA 280/SRT/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.280 To 282/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2009-10) (Physical Hearing) Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala, Vs. The Ito, 4/1710, Nawabwadi, Begampura, Ward – 2(2)(3), Surat – 395003. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahnpj7591D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 23/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

bogus purchases, normally, the name lender or fictitious seller charges a commission and issues sales entries as agreed. The payments are made in cheque and the entry provider returns the amount in cash, or in cheque through a circuitous way, after debiting / retaining his commission amount, ranging between 2 to 5%. But, when the inflation of purchases by the group

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 533/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 without passing speaking order. Ground 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, 3 the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the penalty is not leviable when the addition is made on estimation basis. Ground 4. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 535/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 without passing speaking order. Ground 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, 3 the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the penalty is not leviable when the addition is made on estimation basis. Ground 4. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- 1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 536/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 without passing speaking order. Ground 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, 3 the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the penalty is not leviable when the addition is made on estimation basis. Ground 4. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter

MOULIMANI IMPEX PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -1(1)(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 534/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 271(1)(c)

271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 without passing speaking order. Ground 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and law, 3 the Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the penalty is not leviable when the addition is made on estimation basis. Ground 4. Appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter

INCOME TAX OFFICER, SURAT vs. BORDA BROTHERS, VARACHHA ROAD, SURAT

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed

ITA 1062/SRT/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: None for AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT DR

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

bogus purchases cannot be disallowed and only the gross profit on the alleged purchases to be disallowed." "After taking into consideration the various decisions of the Tribunal that no penalty under section 271(1

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. BORDA BROTHERS, SURAT

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Department are dismissed

ITA 1068/SRT/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: None for AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, CIT DR

Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

bogus purchases cannot be disallowed and only the gross profit on the alleged purchases to be disallowed." "After taking into consideration the various decisions of the Tribunal that no penalty under section 271(1

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI RAJESH KUMAR PAMECHA, AJMER

In the result the ground No

ITA 87/SRT/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar

Section 132(4)Section 144

271). However, quashing reopening and assessment on this ground would mean that the appellant is given undue benefit of mistakes by an individual officer. This is neither fair nor equitable for the revenue. Hence, this ground is not allowed. 13. On merits, Ld. CIT(A) held as follows: “7.2 Ground regarding disallowance of bogus/ unverified purchases 7.2.1 (a) On perusal

ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MUKESH MAHAVIRPRASAD SEN, SURAT

In the result the ground No

ITA 16/SRT/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar

Section 132(4)Section 144

271). However, quashing reopening and assessment on this ground would mean that the appellant is given undue benefit of mistakes by an individual officer. This is neither fair nor equitable for the revenue. Hence, this ground is not allowed. 13. On merits, Ld. CIT(A) held as follows: “7.2 Ground regarding disallowance of bogus/ unverified purchases 7.2.1 (a) On perusal

ITO, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT vs. ANSHUMAN RAMDAYALJI KUMAWAT, SURAT

In the result the ground No

ITA 22/SRT/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar

Section 132(4)Section 144

271). However, quashing reopening and assessment on this ground would mean that the appellant is given undue benefit of mistakes by an individual officer. This is neither fair nor equitable for the revenue. Hence, this ground is not allowed. 13. On merits, Ld. CIT(A) held as follows: “7.2 Ground regarding disallowance of bogus/ unverified purchases 7.2.1 (a) On perusal

ITO, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT vs. ANSHUMAN RAMDAYALJI KUMAWAT, SURAT

In the result the ground No

ITA 21/SRT/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar

Section 132(4)Section 144

271). However, quashing reopening and assessment on this ground would mean that the appellant is given undue benefit of mistakes by an individual officer. This is neither fair nor equitable for the revenue. Hence, this ground is not allowed. 13. On merits, Ld. CIT(A) held as follows: “7.2 Ground regarding disallowance of bogus/ unverified purchases 7.2.1 (a) On perusal

ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MUKESH MAHAVIRPRASAD SEN, SURAT

In the result the ground No

ITA 15/SRT/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar

Section 132(4)Section 144

271). However, quashing reopening and assessment on this ground would mean that the appellant is given undue benefit of mistakes by an individual officer. This is neither fair nor equitable for the revenue. Hence, this ground is not allowed. 13. On merits, Ld. CIT(A) held as follows: “7.2 Ground regarding disallowance of bogus/ unverified purchases 7.2.1 (a) On perusal

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(6), SURAT, SURAT vs. HITESHBHAI POPATBHAI SAKARIYA, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 109/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.107 To 109/Srt/2025 Assessment Years:(2010-11 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Ward – 1(2)(6), 17, Hetal Nagar Society, Rander Road, Surat Near Navyug College, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akvps5306G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Srt/2025 Assessment Year:(2007-08) The Ito, Vs. Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Ward – 1(3)(1), 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Surat Athwalines, Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.1/Srt/2025 [Arising In Ita No.115/Srt/2025] Assessment Year:(2007-08) Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Vs. The Ito, 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Ward – 1(3)(1), Athwalines, Surat - 395001 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mitul R. Mehta, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025

Section 271(1)(c)

bogus purchase. The books of account were also not rejected. Hence, presumption under Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) ITA Nos.107

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(6), SURAT, SURAT vs. HITESHBHAI POPATBHAI SAKARIYA, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 108/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.107 To 109/Srt/2025 Assessment Years:(2010-11 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Ward – 1(2)(6), 17, Hetal Nagar Society, Rander Road, Surat Near Navyug College, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akvps5306G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Srt/2025 Assessment Year:(2007-08) The Ito, Vs. Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Ward – 1(3)(1), 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Surat Athwalines, Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.1/Srt/2025 [Arising In Ita No.115/Srt/2025] Assessment Year:(2007-08) Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Vs. The Ito, 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Ward – 1(3)(1), Athwalines, Surat - 395001 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mitul R. Mehta, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025

Section 271(1)(c)

bogus purchase. The books of account were also not rejected. Hence, presumption under Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) ITA Nos.107

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(6), SURAT, SURAT vs. HITESHBHAI POPATBHAI SAKARIYA, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 107/SRT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.107 To 109/Srt/2025 Assessment Years:(2010-11 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Ward – 1(2)(6), 17, Hetal Nagar Society, Rander Road, Surat Near Navyug College, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akvps5306G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Srt/2025 Assessment Year:(2007-08) The Ito, Vs. Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Ward – 1(3)(1), 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Surat Athwalines, Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.1/Srt/2025 [Arising In Ita No.115/Srt/2025] Assessment Year:(2007-08) Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Vs. The Ito, 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Ward – 1(3)(1), Athwalines, Surat - 395001 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mitul R. Mehta, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025

Section 271(1)(c)

bogus purchase. The books of account were also not rejected. Hence, presumption under Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) ITA Nos.107

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), SURAT, ANAVIL BUSINESS CENTRE, SURAT vs. NAVINBHAI HIMATLAL SHAH, DIWALI BAUG ATHWALINES

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 115/SRT/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.107 To 109/Srt/2025 Assessment Years:(2010-11 To 2012-13) (Hybrid Hearing) The Ito, Vs. Hiteshbhai Popatbhai Sakariya, Ward – 1(2)(6), 17, Hetal Nagar Society, Rander Road, Surat Near Navyug College, Surat - 395009 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Akvps5306G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Himashu Gandhi, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.115/Srt/2025 Assessment Year:(2007-08) The Ito, Vs. Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Ward – 1(3)(1), 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Surat Athwalines, Surat - 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.1/Srt/2025 [Arising In Ita No.115/Srt/2025] Assessment Year:(2007-08) Navinbhai Himatlal Shah, Vs. The Ito, 7/Swashray Society, Diwali Baug, Ward – 1(3)(1), Athwalines, Surat - 395001 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afsps3575H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mitul R. Mehta, Ca Respondent By Ms Neerja Sharma, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2025

Section 271(1)(c)

bogus purchase. The books of account were also not rejected. Hence, presumption under Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) ITA Nos.107

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(6), SURAT, SURAT vs. HITESHBHAI POPATBHAI SAKARIYA, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 106/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI SANJAY GARG (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69C

bogus purchase. The books of account were also not rejected. Hence, presumption under Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) stands