BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

8 results for “bogus purchases”+ Cash Depositclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai745Delhi564Jaipur189Chennai154Ahmedabad130Kolkata112Bangalore100Chandigarh83Indore65Rajkot58Cochin57Hyderabad54Surat46Amritsar44Nagpur37Guwahati31Lucknow28Visakhapatnam25Jodhpur25Allahabad24Pune21Raipur20Agra13Varanasi8Cuttack6Jabalpur5Patna4Ranchi3Dehradun3Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)12Survey u/s 133A6Section 2635Capital Gains5Long Term Capital Gains5Penny Stock5Revision u/s 2635Section 69A3Addition to Income

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 01,, VARANASI vs. SHRI GANESH PRASAD,, VARANASI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 138/VNS/2020[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income - Mr. Ganesh Prasad, Tax, V. S-6/108, Golghar Katchhari, Circle-1, Aayakarbhawan, Varanasi-221002, U.P. Maqboolalam Road Varanasi-221002, U.P.

For Appellant: Shri Subash Chand Adv. & Sh. Ashutosh BhardwajFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

purchases and expenses. 8 It is seen that assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 2,02,50,000/- during the demonetization period. Thus, it is clear that in order to bring in unaccounted cash in hand as on 08.11.2016 assessee has booked bogus

3
Cash Deposit2

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 01,, VARANASI vs. M/S RATANDEEP GOLD & DIAMOND PVT. LTD., CHANDAULI

ITA 136/VNS/2020[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi03 Feb 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner M/S Ratandeep Gold & Diamond Of Income Tax, V. Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, M A Road, 19, New Mohal, Varanasi-211001, U.P. Near Balika Inter College, Mugalsarai, Chandauli- 232101, U.P. Pan:Aahcr4764Q (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 02/Vns/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 136/Vns/2020) Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Ratandeep Gold & The Deputy Commissioner Of Diamond Pvt. Ltd. V. Income Tax,Circle-1, M.A. Road 19, New Mohal, Varanasi-211001, U.P. Near Balika Inter College, Mugalsarai, Chandauli- 232101, U.P.

For Appellant: Shri Shishir Bajpai, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amalendu Nath Mishra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 69A

deposited within a week but you failed to do so. Furthermore while going through return of income filed by you on 07.11.2017 (vide E.filing No 295990071071117) we found that you have not fulfill your commitment made during survey with regard to payment of taxes. You are hereby provided a final opportunity to show cause as to why the aforementioned amount

VISHAL KANODIA,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 85/VNS/2019[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Dec 2023AY 2014-2015
Section 143(3)Section 263

cash from the beneficiaries and get it deposited to various undisclosed proprietorship concerns and get it layered through various accounts and finally transfer it to bogus shell companies who purchases

GOPI KRISHNA VINOD KUMAR HUF,GORAKHPUR vs. PCIT,, GORAKHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 111/VNS/2020[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Dec 2023AY 2015-2016
Section 143(3)Section 263

cash from the beneficiaries and get it deposited to various undisclosed proprietorship concerns and get it layered through various accounts and finally transfer it to bogus shell companies who purchases

ANJU JHUNJHUNWALA,VARANASI vs. PCIT, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 198/VNS/2019[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Dec 2023AY 2015-2016
Section 143(3)Section 263

cash from the beneficiaries and get it deposited to various undisclosed proprietorship concerns and get it layered through various accounts and finally transfer it to bogus shell companies who purchases

VINOD KUMAR SARAF HUF,GORAKHPUR vs. PCIT,, GORAKHPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 112/VNS/2020[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Dec 2023AY 2015-2016
Section 143(3)Section 263

cash from the beneficiaries and get it deposited to various undisclosed proprietorship concerns and get it layered through various accounts and finally transfer it to bogus shell companies who purchases

SARVESH KUMAR AGARWAL HUF,VARANASI vs. PCIT,, VARANASI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 252/VNS/2019[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Dec 2023AY 2015-2016
Section 143(3)Section 263

cash from the beneficiaries and get it deposited to various undisclosed proprietorship concerns and get it layered through various accounts and finally transfer it to bogus shell companies who purchases

ASHUTOSH MISHRA,LUCKNOW vs. CIT(A), VARANASAI

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

ITA 88/ALLD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi26 Sept 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Amit Shuklaassessment Year: 2009-10 Ashutosh Mishra, Vs Assessing Officer, 3/144, Vinay Khand, Circle-3, Gomti Nagar, Varanasi. Lucknow – 226 010. Pan: Adgpm1827Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Bansal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2023 Order Per B.R. Baskaran, Am: The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Challenging The Order Dated 05.02.2016 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), Varanasi & It Relates To Assessment Year 2009-10. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By The Decision Of The Ld.Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.90 Lakhs Made By The Ao.

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 69A

purchase of one property. Before the AO, the assessee appeared once and sought adjournment . Thereafter, the assessee did not appear and was seeking adjournment from time to time. The assessee also did not furnish any explanation with regard to the above-said alleged payment of Rs.90 lakhs. Hence, the AO completed the assessment to the best of his judgement