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.

7 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 12clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,788Delhi1,081Jaipur316Kolkata279Ahmedabad259Chennai248Bangalore181Chandigarh155Surat150Hyderabad128Indore112Rajkot106Raipur102Pune99Amritsar73Visakhapatnam61Cochin58Nagpur52Guwahati51Lucknow48Jodhpur36Allahabad33Agra29Patna26Cuttack20Ranchi16Dehradun10Varanasi7Jabalpur6Panaji3

Key Topics

Section 143(3)12Survey u/s 133A6Section 2635Capital Gains5Long Term Capital Gains5Penny Stock5Revision u/s 2635Section 69A2Addition 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

bogus sale. The assessee has declared cash sale during the F.Y. 2016-17 as under: Month Cash Sales 7 Assessment Year: 2017-18 DCIT, Circle-1, Varanasi v. Mr. Ganesh Prasad, Varanasi April ,2016 3280522 May,2016 3058628 June ,2016 2884982 July ,2016 3808270 August ,2016 3921453 September ,2016 2673140 Thus, the AO observed that the maximum sales declared

2

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

section 263,dated 323-326 05.02.2020. 327-338 12. Reply to above show cause notice on 02.03.2020 24. Ld. Counsel further submitted that, nowhere ld. PCIT has commented as to what further enquiries or information should have been sought by the AO, instead stating that AO should have considered the Investigation report and should have made the assessee. Thus

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

section 263,dated 323-326 05.02.2020. 327-338 12. Reply to above show cause notice on 02.03.2020 24. Ld. Counsel further submitted that, nowhere ld. PCIT has commented as to what further enquiries or information should have been sought by the AO, instead stating that AO should have considered the Investigation report and should have made the assessee. Thus

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

section 263,dated 323-326 05.02.2020. 327-338 12. Reply to above show cause notice on 02.03.2020 24. Ld. Counsel further submitted that, nowhere ld. PCIT has commented as to what further enquiries or information should have been sought by the AO, instead stating that AO should have considered the Investigation report and should have made the assessee. Thus

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

section 263,dated 323-326 05.02.2020. 327-338 12. Reply to above show cause notice on 02.03.2020 24. Ld. Counsel further submitted that, nowhere ld. PCIT has commented as to what further enquiries or information should have been sought by the AO, instead stating that AO should have considered the Investigation report and should have made the assessee. Thus

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

section 263,dated 323-326 05.02.2020. 327-338 12. Reply to above show cause notice on 02.03.2020 24. Ld. Counsel further submitted that, nowhere ld. PCIT has commented as to what further enquiries or information should have been sought by the AO, instead stating that AO should have considered the Investigation report and should have made the assessee. Thus

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

purchase after reconciliation with VAT return , which were entered in books at the time of finalization of accounts . It was also submitted by the assessee that there was some minor difference of Rs. 15,991/- in sales between impounded document as well audited accounts, which were also sales not recorded properly and at the time of finalization and reconciliation with