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.

136 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 69clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,571Delhi1,016Jaipur353Kolkata296Chennai263Ahmedabad206Bangalore163Surat136Chandigarh130Pune110Karnataka106Hyderabad105Indore87Cochin61Amritsar61Raipur56Rajkot53Nagpur51Visakhapatnam42Calcutta38Cuttack36Guwahati35Jodhpur28Allahabad26Lucknow26Agra20Dehradun8Patna8Telangana7Ranchi6Jabalpur5SC3Varanasi2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Panaji1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)77Addition to Income76Section 14756Section 14851Section 6832Section 26329Disallowance29Bogus Purchases29Section 153C28

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)

69,643/- on account of bogus purchases to 5%. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the entire purchase from alleged concerns were bogus and was only to suppress the profit of the beneficiaries which is sustained by the statement on oath given

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

Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Showing 1–20 of 136 · Page 1 of 7

Section 6925
Section 254(1)18
Survey u/s 133A14
Bench:
Section 254(1)

69,643/- on account of bogus purchases to 5%. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the entire purchase from alleged concerns were bogus and was only to suppress the profit of the beneficiaries which is sustained by the statement on oath given

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)

69,643/- on account of bogus purchases to 5%. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the entire purchase from alleged concerns were bogus and was only to suppress the profit of the beneficiaries which is sustained by the statement on oath given

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)

69,643/- on account of bogus purchases to 5%. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the entire purchase from alleged concerns were bogus and was only to suppress the profit of the beneficiaries which is sustained by the statement on oath given

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)

69,643/- on account of bogus purchases to 5%. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the entire purchase from alleged concerns were bogus and was only to suppress the profit of the beneficiaries which is sustained by the statement on oath given

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)

69,643/- on account of bogus purchases to 5%. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the entire purchase from alleged concerns were bogus and was only to suppress the profit of the beneficiaries which is sustained by the statement on oath given

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)

69,643/- on account of bogus purchases to 5%. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the entire purchase from alleged concerns were bogus and was only to suppress the profit of the beneficiaries which is sustained by the statement on oath given

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)

69,643/- on account of bogus purchases to 5%. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the entire purchase from alleged concerns were bogus and was only to suppress the profit of the beneficiaries which is sustained by the statement on oath given

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)

69,643/- on account of bogus purchases to 5%. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the entire purchase from alleged concerns were bogus and was only to suppress the profit of the beneficiaries which is sustained by the statement on oath given

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)

69,643/- on account of bogus purchases to 5%. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the entire purchase from alleged concerns were bogus and was only to suppress the profit of the beneficiaries which is sustained by the statement on oath given

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)

69,643/- on account of bogus purchases to 5%. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the entire purchase from alleged concerns were bogus and was only to suppress the profit of the beneficiaries which is sustained by the statement on oath given

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)

69,643/- on account of bogus purchases to 5%. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the entire purchase from alleged concerns were bogus and was only to suppress the profit of the beneficiaries which is sustained by the statement on oath given

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)

69,643/- on account of bogus purchases to 5%. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the entire purchase from alleged concerns were bogus and was only to suppress the profit of the beneficiaries which is sustained by the statement on oath given

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)

69,643/- on account of bogus purchases to 5%. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the entire purchase from alleged concerns were bogus and was only to suppress the profit of the beneficiaries which is sustained by the statement on oath given

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)

69,643/- on account of bogus purchases to 5%. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the entire purchase from alleged concerns were bogus and was only to suppress the profit of the beneficiaries which is sustained by the statement on oath given

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)

69,643/- on account of bogus purchases to 5%. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the entire purchase from alleged concerns were bogus and was only to suppress the profit of the beneficiaries which is sustained by the statement on oath given

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)

69,643/- on account of bogus purchases to 5%. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the entire purchase from alleged concerns were bogus and was only to suppress the profit of the beneficiaries which is sustained by the statement on oath given

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)

69,643/- on account of bogus purchases to 5%. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the entire purchase from alleged concerns were bogus and was only to suppress the profit of the beneficiaries which is sustained by the statement on oath given

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)

69,643/- on account of bogus purchases to 5%. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the entire purchase from alleged concerns were bogus and was only to suppress the profit of the beneficiaries which is sustained by the statement on oath given

SHRI NAVRATAN 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 106/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Apr 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 254(1)

69,643/- on account of bogus purchases to 5%. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the entire purchase from alleged concerns were bogus and was only to suppress the profit of the beneficiaries which is sustained by the statement on oath given