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.

56 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 25clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,046Delhi1,654Jaipur529Kolkata454Ahmedabad368Chennai361Surat304Bangalore279Pune217Chandigarh167Hyderabad143Indore141Karnataka123Raipur110Amritsar88Rajkot86Nagpur78Cochin63Visakhapatnam56Cuttack49Lucknow48Guwahati42Calcutta41Agra31Allahabad31Jodhpur28Patna19Ranchi18Telangana12Varanasi7Jabalpur6Panaji5SC4Dehradun4Gauhati2Bombay1

Key Topics

Section 153A68Section 143(3)49Addition to Income40Section 13238Section 143(2)27Section 12722Section 142(1)21Section 10A21Section 14A

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 141/VIZ/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri MV Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245D

25. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that had the Department not conducted Search action u/s 132, the fact of availing accommodation entries in the guise of bogus purchase of Plant & Machinery would not have come to light and the modus operandi of the assessee company would not have unearthed. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have

Showing 1–20 of 56 · Page 1 of 3

18
Search & Seizure18
Disallowance14
Bogus Purchases8

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 144/VIZ/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri MV Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245D

25. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that had the Department not conducted Search action u/s 132, the fact of availing accommodation entries in the guise of bogus purchase of Plant & Machinery would not have come to light and the modus operandi of the assessee company would not have unearthed. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 143/VIZ/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri MV Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245D

25. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that had the Department not conducted Search action u/s 132, the fact of availing accommodation entries in the guise of bogus purchase of Plant & Machinery would not have come to light and the modus operandi of the assessee company would not have unearthed. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 142/VIZ/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri MV Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245D

25. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that had the Department not conducted Search action u/s 132, the fact of availing accommodation entries in the guise of bogus purchase of Plant & Machinery would not have come to light and the modus operandi of the assessee company would not have unearthed. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have

MAA MAHAMAYA INDUSTRIES LIMITED,CHHATTISGARH vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 140/VIZ/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri MV Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr Satyasai Rath, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245D

25. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the fact that had the Department not conducted Search action u/s 132, the fact of availing accommodation entries in the guise of bogus purchase of Plant & Machinery would not have come to light and the modus operandi of the assessee company would not have unearthed. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have

PENMATSA PRASAD RAJU,BHIMAVARAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BHIMAVARAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 517/VIZ/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.517/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1 Penmatsa Prasad Raju D.No. 7-7-25/3 Income Tax Office Kodavalli Road, Fci Colony Aayakar Bhavan Bhimavaram – 534201 Jp Road, Sivaraopet Andhra Pradesh Bhimavaram – 534201 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aqcpp6707B] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.33/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23) Vs. Penmatsa Prasad Raju Income Tax Officer D.No. 7-7-25/3 Income Tax Office Kodavalli Road, Fci Colony Aayakar Bhavan Bhimavaram – 534201 Opp. Ganesh Canteen Andhra Pradesh Jp Road, Sivaraopet Bhimavaram – 534202 [Pan:Aqcpp6707B] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 144

bogus purchases. However, he further submitted that Ld.CIT(A) has erred in estimating the net profit @ 2% merely on the basis of assumption and surmises. He therefore pleaded that the order of the Ld. AO be restored. On the issue Ld.DR relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Shree Ganesh

INCOMETAX OFFICER , BHIMAVARAM vs. PRASAD RAJU PENMATSA, BHIMAVARAM

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 33/VIZ/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.517/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1 Penmatsa Prasad Raju D.No. 7-7-25/3 Income Tax Office Kodavalli Road, Fci Colony Aayakar Bhavan Bhimavaram – 534201 Jp Road, Sivaraopet Andhra Pradesh Bhimavaram – 534201 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aqcpp6707B] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.33/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23) Vs. Penmatsa Prasad Raju Income Tax Officer D.No. 7-7-25/3 Income Tax Office Kodavalli Road, Fci Colony Aayakar Bhavan Bhimavaram – 534201 Opp. Ganesh Canteen Andhra Pradesh Jp Road, Sivaraopet Bhimavaram – 534202 [Pan:Aqcpp6707B] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 144

bogus purchases. However, he further submitted that Ld.CIT(A) has erred in estimating the net profit @ 2% merely on the basis of assumption and surmises. He therefore pleaded that the order of the Ld. AO be restored. On the issue Ld.DR relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Shree Ganesh

THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA vs. VEDMUTHA ELECTRICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 35/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: None
Section 131Section 147

Section 68 of the Act. 8. As a consequence of treating the aforesaid loan transaction as bogus, the A.O disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of interest of Rs. 11,83,562/- that the assessee company had claimed to have paid on the same. 9. Also, the A.O. going by the admission of Shri. Rajesh G. Mehta (supra

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA vs. VEDMUTHA ELECTRICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 37/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: None
Section 131Section 147

Section 68 of the Act. 8. As a consequence of treating the aforesaid loan transaction as bogus, the A.O disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of interest of Rs. 11,83,562/- that the assessee company had claimed to have paid on the same. 9. Also, the A.O. going by the admission of Shri. Rajesh G. Mehta (supra

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA vs. VEDMUTHA ELECTRICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 38/VIZ/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: None
Section 131Section 147

Section 68 of the Act. 8. As a consequence of treating the aforesaid loan transaction as bogus, the A.O disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of interest of Rs. 11,83,562/- that the assessee company had claimed to have paid on the same. 9. Also, the A.O. going by the admission of Shri. Rajesh G. Mehta (supra

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), VIJAYAWADA, VIJAYAWADA vs. VEDMUTHA ELECTRICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 34/VIZ/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: None
Section 131Section 147

Section 68 of the Act. 8. As a consequence of treating the aforesaid loan transaction as bogus, the A.O disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of interest of Rs. 11,83,562/- that the assessee company had claimed to have paid on the same. 9. Also, the A.O. going by the admission of Shri. Rajesh G. Mehta (supra

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, VIJAYAWADA vs. VEDMUTHA ELECTRICALS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, VIJAYAWADA

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 36/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: None
Section 131Section 147

Section 68 of the Act. 8. As a consequence of treating the aforesaid loan transaction as bogus, the A.O disallowed the assessee’s claim for deduction of interest of Rs. 11,83,562/- that the assessee company had claimed to have paid on the same. 9. Also, the A.O. going by the admission of Shri. Rajesh G. Mehta (supra

INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, VISAKHAPATNAM vs. QUALITY STEEL SHOPPE PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the Cross Objection No

ITA 454/VIZ/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam14 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.454/Viz/2024 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Income Tax Officer, Vs. Quality Steel Shoppe Ward-2(1), Private Limited, Visakhapatnam. Visakhapatnam. Pan: Aaacq1115D (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 18/Viz/2024 (In आ.अपी.सं /454/Viz/2024) ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Badicala Yadagiri
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A

bogus purchases, the assessee company vide its reply dated 08/01/2024 rebutted the same. It was submitted by the assessee company that during the Financial Year 2017-18, M/s. Steel Exchange India Limited (SEIL) had sold 998.870 mts of MS bars to M/s. Hero Wiretex Private Limited but had not taken the delivery of inventory due to non-payment of sale

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. DODDI ROOPA, VISAKHAPATNAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 413/VIZ/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.413/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20) Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Smt. Doddi Roopa, Income Tax, Visakhapatnam. Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. Pan: Atfpr7237N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

bogus. Also, the CIT(A) observed that the provisions of section 194Q had been made applicable from 01/07/2021, i.e., deduction of tax at source on the payments made against the purchases, and the same did not apply to the case of the assessee for the year under consideration, i.e., AY 2019-20. 9. Apart from that, we find that

SHYAM SUNDAR POLISETTY,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2013-

ITA 263/VIZ/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 260 To 267/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2020-21)

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

25,13,508/- has been subjected to tax in the hands of the firm M/s. Polisetty Somasundaram. It was also confirmed by the order of this Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.173/Viz/2023 (AY: 2013-14). Therefore, the same amount cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. It is a trite law that any income

SHYAM SUNDAR POLISETTY,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2013-

ITA 267/VIZ/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 260 To 267/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2020-21)

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

25,13,508/- has been subjected to tax in the hands of the firm M/s. Polisetty Somasundaram. It was also confirmed by the order of this Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.173/Viz/2023 (AY: 2013-14). Therefore, the same amount cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. It is a trite law that any income

SHYAM SUNDAR POLISETTY,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2013-

ITA 265/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 260 To 267/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2020-21)

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

25,13,508/- has been subjected to tax in the hands of the firm M/s. Polisetty Somasundaram. It was also confirmed by the order of this Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.173/Viz/2023 (AY: 2013-14). Therefore, the same amount cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. It is a trite law that any income

SHYAM SUNDAR POLISETTY ,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2013-

ITA 261/VIZ/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 260 To 267/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2020-21)

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

25,13,508/- has been subjected to tax in the hands of the firm M/s. Polisetty Somasundaram. It was also confirmed by the order of this Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.173/Viz/2023 (AY: 2013-14). Therefore, the same amount cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. It is a trite law that any income

SHYAM SUNDAR POLISETTY,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2013-

ITA 260/VIZ/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 260 To 267/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2020-21)

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

25,13,508/- has been subjected to tax in the hands of the firm M/s. Polisetty Somasundaram. It was also confirmed by the order of this Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.173/Viz/2023 (AY: 2013-14). Therefore, the same amount cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. It is a trite law that any income

SHYAM SUNDAR POLISETTY,GUNTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GUNTUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2013-

ITA 264/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam28 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos. 260 To 267/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2020-21)

For Appellant: Sri M.V. Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

25,13,508/- has been subjected to tax in the hands of the firm M/s. Polisetty Somasundaram. It was also confirmed by the order of this Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.173/Viz/2023 (AY: 2013-14). Therefore, the same amount cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. It is a trite law that any income