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.

438 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 8clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai5,109Delhi2,643Kolkata858Jaipur615Ahmedabad610Chennai507Surat438Pune401Bangalore373Chandigarh280Hyderabad230Indore204Raipur173Rajkot129Karnataka126Amritsar119Nagpur110Lucknow76Visakhapatnam73Guwahati67Cochin66Cuttack65Calcutta51Agra49Jodhpur44Allahabad35Patna33Ranchi24Telangana18Dehradun17Jabalpur12Varanasi7SC6Panaji5Orissa3Gauhati2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Addition to Income91Section 143(3)79Section 14863Section 14751Section 271(1)(c)45Bogus Purchases45Section 6831Disallowance22Section 26321

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)

8. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee on validity of re-opening held that quashing the re-opening and assessment would mean to given undue benefit of mistake of individual officer, which is neither fair nor equitable for the Revenue. However, on the addition on account of disputed / bogus purchases shown from various entities managed

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 438 · Page 1 of 22

...
Section 143(2)19
Reopening of Assessment17
Section 133(6)16
Bench:
Section 254(1)

8. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee on validity of re-opening held that quashing the re-opening and assessment would mean to given undue benefit of mistake of individual officer, which is neither fair nor equitable for the Revenue. However, on the addition on account of disputed / bogus purchases shown from various entities managed

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)

8. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee on validity of re-opening held that quashing the re-opening and assessment would mean to given undue benefit of mistake of individual officer, which is neither fair nor equitable for the Revenue. However, on the addition on account of disputed / bogus purchases shown from various entities managed

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)

8. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee on validity of re-opening held that quashing the re-opening and assessment would mean to given undue benefit of mistake of individual officer, which is neither fair nor equitable for the Revenue. However, on the addition on account of disputed / bogus purchases shown from various entities managed

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)

8. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee on validity of re-opening held that quashing the re-opening and assessment would mean to given undue benefit of mistake of individual officer, which is neither fair nor equitable for the Revenue. However, on the addition on account of disputed / bogus purchases shown from various entities managed

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)

8. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee on validity of re-opening held that quashing the re-opening and assessment would mean to given undue benefit of mistake of individual officer, which is neither fair nor equitable for the Revenue. However, on the addition on account of disputed / bogus purchases shown from various entities managed

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)

8. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee on validity of re-opening held that quashing the re-opening and assessment would mean to given undue benefit of mistake of individual officer, which is neither fair nor equitable for the Revenue. However, on the addition on account of disputed / bogus purchases shown from various entities managed

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)

8. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee on validity of re-opening held that quashing the re-opening and assessment would mean to given undue benefit of mistake of individual officer, which is neither fair nor equitable for the Revenue. However, on the addition on account of disputed / bogus purchases shown from various entities managed

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)

8. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee on validity of re-opening held that quashing the re-opening and assessment would mean to given undue benefit of mistake of individual officer, which is neither fair nor equitable for the Revenue. However, on the addition on account of disputed / bogus purchases shown from various entities managed

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)

8. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee on validity of re-opening held that quashing the re-opening and assessment would mean to given undue benefit of mistake of individual officer, which is neither fair nor equitable for the Revenue. However, on the addition on account of disputed / bogus purchases shown from various entities managed

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)

8. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee on validity of re-opening held that quashing the re-opening and assessment would mean to given undue benefit of mistake of individual officer, which is neither fair nor equitable for the Revenue. However, on the addition on account of disputed / bogus purchases shown from various entities managed

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)

8. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee on validity of re-opening held that quashing the re-opening and assessment would mean to given undue benefit of mistake of individual officer, which is neither fair nor equitable for the Revenue. However, on the addition on account of disputed / bogus purchases shown from various entities managed

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)

8. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee on validity of re-opening held that quashing the re-opening and assessment would mean to given undue benefit of mistake of individual officer, which is neither fair nor equitable for the Revenue. However, on the addition on account of disputed / bogus purchases shown from various entities managed

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)

8. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee on validity of re-opening held that quashing the re-opening and assessment would mean to given undue benefit of mistake of individual officer, which is neither fair nor equitable for the Revenue. However, on the addition on account of disputed / bogus purchases shown from various entities managed

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)

8. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee on validity of re-opening held that quashing the re-opening and assessment would mean to given undue benefit of mistake of individual officer, which is neither fair nor equitable for the Revenue. However, on the addition on account of disputed / bogus purchases shown from various entities managed

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)

8. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee on validity of re-opening held that quashing the re-opening and assessment would mean to given undue benefit of mistake of individual officer, which is neither fair nor equitable for the Revenue. However, on the addition on account of disputed / bogus purchases shown from various entities managed

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)

8. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee on validity of re-opening held that quashing the re-opening and assessment would mean to given undue benefit of mistake of individual officer, which is neither fair nor equitable for the Revenue. However, on the addition on account of disputed / bogus purchases shown from various entities managed

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)

8. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee on validity of re-opening held that quashing the re-opening and assessment would mean to given undue benefit of mistake of individual officer, which is neither fair nor equitable for the Revenue. However, on the addition on account of disputed / bogus purchases shown from various entities managed

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)

8. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee on validity of re-opening held that quashing the re-opening and assessment would mean to given undue benefit of mistake of individual officer, which is neither fair nor equitable for the Revenue. However, on the addition on account of disputed / bogus purchases shown from various entities managed

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)

8. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of assessee on validity of re-opening held that quashing the re-opening and assessment would mean to given undue benefit of mistake of individual officer, which is neither fair nor equitable for the Revenue. However, on the addition on account of disputed / bogus purchases shown from various entities managed