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.

3,111 results for “bogus purchases”+ Natural Justiceclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai907Delhi543Jaipur222Ahmedabad187Kolkata146Bangalore139Chennai112Chandigarh92Rajkot83Raipur83Indore71Hyderabad70Amritsar63Cochin58Pune56Surat54Nagpur33Allahabad30Lucknow28Agra26Guwahati25Patna23Jodhpur17Visakhapatnam14Cuttack9Dehradun8Jabalpur6Ranchi2Varanasi2Panaji2

Key Topics

Addition to Income78Section 14869Section 14768Section 153C55Section 26354Section 143(3)46Section 25042Section 6838Natural Justice31Section 143(2)

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

ITA 1817/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &
Section 132Section 139Section 153CSection 250

purchases unjustified on the AO’s part to baldly allege that, all purchases lacking GRN details were bogus. GRN details were bogus. 10. Having considered the above submissions, we Having considered the above submissions, we cannot conclusively cannot conclusively agree with the AO that agree with the AO that, the material seized from the premises of the the material seized

BHARAT DE vs. HI DAGHA,THANEVS.ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN

Showing 1–20 of 3,111 · Page 1 of 156

...
30
Disallowance26
Bogus Purchases18

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3314/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Kalpesh Khatri, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Kumar Meena, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

natural justice are satisfied. justice are satisfied. 60. In Bakshi Ghulam Mohamm 60. In Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ad, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the right of hearing cannot include the right of cross held that the right of hearing cannot include the right of cross held that the right of hearing cannot include

BHARAT DE vs. HI DAGHA,THANEVS.ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3315/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Kalpesh Khatri, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Kumar Meena, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148

natural justice are satisfied. justice are satisfied. 60. In Bakshi Ghulam Mohamm 60. In Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ad, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the right of hearing cannot include the right of cross held that the right of hearing cannot include the right of cross held that the right of hearing cannot include

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS MUMBAI vs. BHARAT HIRALAL SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for eal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 729/MUM/2025[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito, Bharat Hiralal Shah, 501 5Th Floor, Income Tax Office 220, 4Th Floor Badrikashram 1St Piramal Chambers Lalbaug, Vs. Khetwadi Lane, Mumbai-400012. Mumbai-400004. Pan No. Aaeps 5511 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Khushali PandyaFor Respondent: Mr. Pravin Salunkhe, Sr. DR

natural justice, which Bharat Hiralal Shah allegations. 7.7 At this point it is beyond doubt that the appellant has At this point it is beyond doubt that the appellant has At this point it is beyond doubt that the appellant has provided substantial documentary evidence that was accepted vided substantial documentary evidence that was accepted vided substantial documentary evidence that

NIRMIT JATIN LATHIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 29(2)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue

ITA 4784/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Nirmit Jatin Lathia, Ito 29(2)(2), 2B/101, Jain Upashraya Lane, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Tagore Nagar, Vikhroli East, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Acgpl 0296 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito 41(2)(3), Nirmit Jatin Lathia, Room No. 732, Om Sai Chs, Bldg. No. 2, B-Wing, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Flat No. 101, Opp Bharat Nagar Mumbai-400051. Jain Upashraya Lane, Vikhroli (E), Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Acgpl 0296 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil Shinde, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Mandar Vaidya
Section 1Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

bogus purchases. c. The assessment order is passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 and not u/s c. The assessment order is passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 and not u/s c. The assessment order is passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 and not u/s 144. Therefore there cannot be an Therefore there cannot be any estimation of profits especially when

ITO41(2)(3),MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs. NIRMIT JATIN LATHIA, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and Revenue

ITA 4828/MUM/2023[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11 Nirmit Jatin Lathia, Ito 29(2)(2), 2B/101, Jain Upashraya Lane, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Tagore Nagar, Vikhroli East, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Acgpl 0296 F Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ito 41(2)(3), Nirmit Jatin Lathia, Room No. 732, Om Sai Chs, Bldg. No. 2, B-Wing, Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Vs. Flat No. 101, Opp Bharat Nagar Mumbai-400051. Jain Upashraya Lane, Vikhroli (E), Mumbai-400083. Pan No. Acgpl 0296 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil Shinde, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. Mandar Vaidya
Section 1Section 129Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

bogus purchases. c. The assessment order is passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 and not u/s c. The assessment order is passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 and not u/s c. The assessment order is passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 and not u/s 144. Therefore there cannot be an Therefore there cannot be any estimation of profits especially when

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3555/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha Jain, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

bogus purchases the penalty levied by the learned Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT (A) is sustainable or not. As the facts and circumstances leading to the addition in both these 08. appeals are similar, the learned Authorized Representative Ms. Ridhisha Jain, submitted a detailed written submission contesting the first ground of appeal stating that both the penalty

DINESH SOMATMAL DHOKAR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 3556/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Ridhisha Jain, AR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

bogus purchases the penalty levied by the learned Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT (A) is sustainable or not. As the facts and circumstances leading to the addition in both these 08. appeals are similar, the learned Authorized Representative Ms. Ridhisha Jain, submitted a detailed written submission contesting the first ground of appeal stating that both the penalty

ITO 6 (1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S A J COAL PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5718/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-6(1)(1), M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 24A, Coal Depot, Sewree (E), Vs. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor, M.K. Mumbai-400015. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Ito-6(1)(1), C/O M/S Jayesh Sanghrajka & Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 503, Co. Llp, 405, Hind Rajasthan Vs. 5Th Floor, M.K. Road, New Marine Centre, Ds Phalke Road, Dadar Lines, Mumbai-400020. (East), Mumbai-400014. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Shubham Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Indira Adakil, DR
Section 148Section 151

bogus parties from whom Purchases made during the year where assessee has shown profit from sale during the year where assessee has shown profit from sale during the year where assessee has shown profit from sale of these goods shown as Purcha of these goods shown as Purchased from hawala parties, no sed from hawala parties, no addition is made

M/S A J COAL PVT LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ITO 6 (1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the In the result, both the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7289/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito-6(1)(1), M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, 24A, Coal Depot, Sewree (E), Vs. Room No. 503, 5Th Floor, M.K. Mumbai-400015. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S A.J. Coal Pvt. Ltd., Ito-6(1)(1), C/O M/S Jayesh Sanghrajka & Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 503, Co. Llp, 405, Hind Rajasthan Vs. 5Th Floor, M.K. Road, New Marine Centre, Ds Phalke Road, Dadar Lines, Mumbai-400020. (East), Mumbai-400014. Pan No. Aabca 0386 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Shubham Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Indira Adakil, DR
Section 148Section 151

bogus parties from whom Purchases made during the year where assessee has shown profit from sale during the year where assessee has shown profit from sale during the year where assessee has shown profit from sale of these goods shown as Purcha of these goods shown as Purchased from hawala parties, no sed from hawala parties, no addition is made

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , MANGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 431/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

bogus purchases accounted by the assessee as found by any of the lower authorities.” 3.7 In the instant case though assessee had received the supplies from the persons in respect to whom additional income is offered, it has admitted additional income to co-operate with the department. Only where the parties have confirmed, the additional income is not offered

DCIT CC-7(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MAN INDUSTRIES (I) LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, both the both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 617/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. R.R. Makwana, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Mr. K. Gopal
Section 143(3)Section 68

natural justice. 2. Whether, on the facts a 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in nd circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in deleting penalty of Rs. law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in deleting penalty of Rs. law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in deleting penalty

DCIT CC 7(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S MAN INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, both the both the appeal of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 618/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. R.R. Makwana, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Mr. K. Gopal
Section 143(3)Section 68

natural justice. 2. Whether, on the facts a 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in nd circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in deleting penalty of Rs. law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in deleting penalty of Rs. law, the Learned CIT(A) erred in deleting penalty

ASTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA, AAYAKAR BHAWAN vs. WARYAM STEEL CASTING PRIVATE LIMITED, KANGANWAL ROAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 757/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Muskan Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 148Section 250

purchases made from said parties were bogus. He, accordingly, added entire amount of purchases to gross profit of assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) having found that assessee had indeed made purchases, though not from named parties but other parties from grey market, sustained addition to extent of 30 per cent of purchase cost as probable profit of assessee. The Tribunal however

WARYAM STEEL CASTINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,LUDHIANA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, LUDHIANA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 715/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Muskan Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 148Section 250

purchases made from said parties were bogus. He, accordingly, added entire amount of purchases to gross profit of assessee. The Commissioner (Appeals) having found that assessee had indeed made purchases, though not from named parties but other parties from grey market, sustained addition to extent of 30 per cent of purchase cost as probable profit of assessee. The Tribunal however

PURNA PURSHOTTAM EXPORTS ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 32(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 1616/MUM/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2023AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Purna Pushottam Exports, Ito-32(3)(5), Gala No. 329, Vardhman Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Pan No. Aaefp 8085 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 Purna Pushottam Exports, Acit Central Circle, 2(2), Gala No. 329, Vardhman Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Pan No. Aaefp 8085 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Adv. &For Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, DR
Section 148

natural justice and the same may be deleted. justice and the same may be deleted. 6. 6. Without prejudice to the above the Ld. CIT(A) failed to 6. Without prejudice to the above the Ld. CIT(A) failed to 6. Without prejudice to the above the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the A.O. has erred in treating

PURNA PURSHOTTAM EXPORTS ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE,2(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 1618/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Purna Pushottam Exports, Ito-32(3)(5), Gala No. 329, Vardhman Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Pan No. Aaefp 8085 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 Purna Pushottam Exports, Acit Central Circle, 2(2), Gala No. 329, Vardhman Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Pan No. Aaefp 8085 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Adv. &For Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, DR
Section 148

natural justice and the same may be deleted. justice and the same may be deleted. 6. 6. Without prejudice to the above the Ld. CIT(A) failed to 6. Without prejudice to the above the Ld. CIT(A) failed to 6. Without prejudice to the above the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the A.O. has erred in treating

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SILMOHAN GEMS PRIVATE LIMTED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

ITA 450/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Mitali Mehta a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 40A(3)Section 69C

bogus purchases without providing any justification for arriving purchases without providing any justification for arriving purchases without providing any justification for arriving atthis rate which is totally baseless and unacceptable. atthis rate which is totally baseless and unacceptable. atthis rate which is totally baseless and unacceptable. 6. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts

DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SILMOHAN GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

ITA 449/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Mitali Mehta a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 40A(3)Section 69C

bogus purchases without providing any justification for arriving purchases without providing any justification for arriving purchases without providing any justification for arriving atthis rate which is totally baseless and unacceptable. atthis rate which is totally baseless and unacceptable. atthis rate which is totally baseless and unacceptable. 6. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts

SILMOHAN GEMS PVT LTD. COMPANY,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

ITA 471/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Ms. Mitali Mehta a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 40A(3)Section 69C

bogus purchases without providing any justification for arriving purchases without providing any justification for arriving purchases without providing any justification for arriving atthis rate which is totally baseless and unacceptable. atthis rate which is totally baseless and unacceptable. atthis rate which is totally baseless and unacceptable. 6. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts