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.

53 results for “bogus purchases”+ TDSclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai747Delhi394Kolkata164Ahmedabad127Chennai122Jaipur102Hyderabad87Bangalore74Chandigarh71Cochin57Surat53Indore43Nagpur29Pune29Raipur27Rajkot24Visakhapatnam22Jodhpur19Agra18Guwahati17Lucknow17Cuttack17Amritsar16Allahabad10Dehradun9Ranchi6Patna5Calcutta2Panaji2Jabalpur2Telangana1Varanasi1Bombay1

Key Topics

Addition to Income49Disallowance32Bogus Purchases28Section 14823Section 254(1)23Section 271(1)(c)22Section 143(3)20Section 133(6)18Section 6818

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

bogus is not sustainable, for the simple reason that assessee was working as commission agent and impugned purchases have not been claimed as expenses, hence findings of AO are rejected. It has been proved beyond doubt that assesse has earned only commission income of Rs.6,67,276/- on entire business transactions by keeping mark up (profit margin) in the range

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

In the result the ground No

Showing 1–20 of 53 · Page 1 of 3

Reassessment16
Section 14714
Section 143(2)12
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

bogus is not sustainable, for the simple reason that assessee was working as commission agent and impugned purchases have not been claimed as expenses, hence findings of AO are rejected. It has been proved beyond doubt that assesse has earned only commission income of Rs.6,67,276/- on entire business transactions by keeping mark up (profit margin) in the range

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

bogus is not sustainable, for the simple reason that assessee was working as commission agent and impugned purchases have not been claimed as expenses, hence findings of AO are rejected. It has been proved beyond doubt that assesse has earned only commission income of Rs.6,67,276/- on entire business transactions by keeping mark up (profit margin) in the range

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

bogus is not sustainable, for the simple reason that assessee was working as commission agent and impugned purchases have not been claimed as expenses, hence findings of AO are rejected. It has been proved beyond doubt that assesse has earned only commission income of Rs.6,67,276/- on entire business transactions by keeping mark up (profit margin) in the range

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

bogus is not sustainable, for the simple reason that assessee was working as commission agent and impugned purchases have not been claimed as expenses, hence findings of AO are rejected. It has been proved beyond doubt that assesse has earned only commission income of Rs.6,67,276/- on entire business transactions by keeping mark up (profit margin) in the range

SHRI ANIL G. KUMAWAT,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1384/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

Section 254(1)

bogus entities from which the assessee has shown purchase of 25,29,70,993/-. On the above observation the assessing officer issued show cause notice as to why the purchased should not be disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. 8. The assessee filed its reply dated 18.03.2015 to the said show cause notice. In the reply

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5),, SURAT vs. SHRI VIRENDRA KUMAR LODHA,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1498/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

Section 254(1)

bogus entities from which the assessee has shown purchase of 25,29,70,993/-. On the above observation the assessing officer issued show cause notice as to why the purchased should not be disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. 8. The assessee filed its reply dated 18.03.2015 to the said show cause notice. In the reply

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1),, SURAT vs. SHRI GYANCHAND SUGAMCHAND JAIN,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1521/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

Section 254(1)

bogus entities from which the assessee has shown purchase of 25,29,70,993/-. On the above observation the assessing officer issued show cause notice as to why the purchased should not be disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. 8. The assessee filed its reply dated 18.03.2015 to the said show cause notice. In the reply

SHRI VIRENDRA KUMAR LODHA,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1380/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

Section 254(1)

bogus entities from which the assessee has shown purchase of 25,29,70,993/-. On the above observation the assessing officer issued show cause notice as to why the purchased should not be disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. 8. The assessee filed its reply dated 18.03.2015 to the said show cause notice. In the reply

SHRI SHARAD Y. JAIN,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(4),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1390/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

Section 254(1)

bogus entities from which the assessee has shown purchase of 25,29,70,993/-. On the above observation the assessing officer issued show cause notice as to why the purchased should not be disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. 8. The assessee filed its reply dated 18.03.2015 to the said show cause notice. In the reply

SHRI GYANCHAND & JAIN,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1387/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

Section 254(1)

bogus entities from which the assessee has shown purchase of 25,29,70,993/-. On the above observation the assessing officer issued show cause notice as to why the purchased should not be disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. 8. The assessee filed its reply dated 18.03.2015 to the said show cause notice. In the reply

SHRI NARESH R. PAREEK,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(3),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1392/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

Section 254(1)

bogus entities from which the assessee has shown purchase of 25,29,70,993/-. On the above observation the assessing officer issued show cause notice as to why the purchased should not be disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. 8. The assessee filed its reply dated 18.03.2015 to the said show cause notice. In the reply

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1),, SURAT vs. SHRI ANIL GHANSHYAMBHAI KUMAWAT,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1520/AHD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

Section 254(1)

bogus entities from which the assessee has shown purchase of 25,29,70,993/-. On the above observation the assessing officer issued show cause notice as to why the purchased should not be disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. 8. The assessee filed its reply dated 18.03.2015 to the said show cause notice. In the reply

SHRI ANIL G. KUMAWAT,,SURAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1),, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1383/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

Section 254(1)

bogus entities from which the assessee has shown purchase of 25,29,70,993/-. On the above observation the assessing officer issued show cause notice as to why the purchased should not be disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. 8. The assessee filed its reply dated 18.03.2015 to the said show cause notice. In the reply

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1),, SURAT vs. SHRI ANIL GHANSHYAMBHAI KUMAWAT,, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1519/AHD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

Section 254(1)

bogus entities from which the assessee has shown purchase of 25,29,70,993/-. On the above observation the assessing officer issued show cause notice as to why the purchased should not be disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. 8. The assessee filed its reply dated 18.03.2015 to the said show cause notice. In the reply

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE, SURATVS.M/S RUSHABH INTERNATIONAL, NAVSARI

In the result, all three C

ITA 349/SRT/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram S. Yadavassessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.P.K. Panda, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

bogus were duly supported by purchase invoices from the two parties, confirmation of accounts, affidavit of Shri Dharmichand Jain confirming the transaction, affidavit of retraction of statement by Shri Dharmichand Jain, stock statement, cost sheet for the manufactured diamonds lot-wise, challans for transfer of the diamonds to manufacturing department, lot-wise labour charges paid, monthly report of TDS

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NA vs. ARIVS.M/S RUSHABH INTERNATIONAL, NAVSARI

In the result, all three C

ITA 350/SRT/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram S. Yadavassessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.P.K. Panda, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

bogus were duly supported by purchase invoices from the two parties, confirmation of accounts, affidavit of Shri Dharmichand Jain confirming the transaction, affidavit of retraction of statement by Shri Dharmichand Jain, stock statement, cost sheet for the manufactured diamonds lot-wise, challans for transfer of the diamonds to manufacturing department, lot-wise labour charges paid, monthly report of TDS

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NA vs. ARI CIRCLE, NAVSARIVS.M/S RUSHABH INTERNATIONAL , NAVSARI

In the result, all three C

ITA 347/SRT/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram S. Yadavassessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.P.K. Panda, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

bogus were duly supported by purchase invoices from the two parties, confirmation of accounts, affidavit of Shri Dharmichand Jain confirming the transaction, affidavit of retraction of statement by Shri Dharmichand Jain, stock statement, cost sheet for the manufactured diamonds lot-wise, challans for transfer of the diamonds to manufacturing department, lot-wise labour charges paid, monthly report of TDS

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1) (1),, SURAT vs. ANUSHREE SAREES PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue ( In ITA No

ITA 1680/AHD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1680 To 1682/Ahd/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.61/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 To 2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Dcit, Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. M/S. Anushree Sarees Pvt. Ltd., Surat. D-5409, Raghukul Textile Market, Ring Road, Surat-395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagca5772J (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Aaditya Nemani, CAFor Respondent: Shri H. P. Meena, CIT(DR) & Ms Anupama Singla, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

purchases, job work etc. which are entirely disallowed by the Id assessing officer are not fully bogus, but may perhaps involve certain inflation The portion of inflation involved in the same is offered in IDS 2016 scheme, by the Director of the appellant-company @ 12.5 % of the said expenses and the same amount is brought into appellant - company as "share

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1) (1),, SURAT vs. ANUSHREE SAREES PVT. LTD.,, SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue ( In ITA No

ITA 1682/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1680 To 1682/Ahd/2017 आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.61/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2011-12 To 2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Dcit, Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. M/S. Anushree Sarees Pvt. Ltd., Surat. D-5409, Raghukul Textile Market, Ring Road, Surat-395001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagca5772J (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Aaditya Nemani, CAFor Respondent: Shri H. P. Meena, CIT(DR) & Ms Anupama Singla, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

purchases, job work etc. which are entirely disallowed by the Id assessing officer are not fully bogus, but may perhaps involve certain inflation The portion of inflation involved in the same is offered in IDS 2016 scheme, by the Director of the appellant-company @ 12.5 % of the said expenses and the same amount is brought into appellant - company as "share