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.

1,298 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 153Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai378Delhi349Jaipur87Chennai81Bangalore69Cochin57Chandigarh46Guwahati30Rajkot28Hyderabad27Kolkata24Allahabad17Ahmedabad16Nagpur15Indore13Pune12Surat10Visakhapatnam9Lucknow7Patna7Raipur6Dehradun5Jodhpur3Cuttack1Amritsar1

Key Topics

Section 153C140Section 14881Section 14777Addition to Income67Section 13266Section 153A51Section 25031Section 143(3)30Disallowance27Section 263

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

ITA 1238/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

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

Section 153C of the Act fro analyzed the entire statutory framework of Section 153C of the Act fro analyzed the entire statutory framework of Section 153C of the Act from its introduction to the amendment by Finance Act, 2017 and its its introduction to the amendment by Finance Act, 2017 and its its introduction to the amendment by Finance

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

Showing 1–20 of 1,298 · Page 1 of 65

...
23
Search & Seizure17
Natural Justice16
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

153C of the Act, a search u/s 132 of the Act was conducted upon the earch u/s 132 of the Act was conducted upon the ITA Nos.1817 to 1819 1817 to 1819/Chny/2025 & ITA Nos.1550 to 1552 1550 to 1552 /Chny/2025 (AYs 2020 2020-21 to 2022-23) Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd. M/s.Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt ::3 :: assessee

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

In the result, both the both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Revenue and the

ITA 1254/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

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

Section 153C of the Act fro analyzed the entire statutory framework of Section 153C of the Act fro analyzed the entire statutory framework of Section 153C of the Act from its introduction to the amendment by Finance Act, 2017 and its its introduction to the amendment by Finance Act, 2017 and its its introduction to the amendment by Finance

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 236/BANG/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Prashanth G S, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 292B

bogus entry and it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that it is only an adjustment entry to reduce the profits as per books by inflating expenditure and reducing tax liability thereon. In the light of the above, the assessee was further asked to substantiate why section 40A(3) of the Act should not be invoked in the assessee’s case

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 234/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Prashanth G S, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 292B

bogus entry and it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that it is only an adjustment entry to reduce the profits as per books by inflating expenditure and reducing tax liability thereon. In the light of the above, the assessee was further asked to substantiate why section 40A(3) of the Act should not be invoked in the assessee’s case

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

Accordingly, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms

ITA 237/BANG/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. Prashanth G S, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 292B

bogus entry and it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that it is only an adjustment entry to reduce the profits as per books by inflating expenditure and reducing tax liability thereon. In the light of the above, the assessee was further asked to substantiate why section 40A(3) of the Act should not be invoked in the assessee’s case

M/S. EAGLE TRADERS & LOGISTICS,BELLARY vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3), BANGALORE

ITA 235/BANG/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 May 2025AY 2009-10
Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 292B

bogus entry and it is proved beyond reasonable doubt\nthat it is only an adjustment entry to reduce the profits as per books by inflating\nexpenditure and reducing tax liability thereon. In the light of the above, the\nassessee was further asked to substantiate why section 40A(3) of the Act should\nnot be invoked in the assessee's case

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

ITA 1255/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 153CSection 250Section 80G

153C of the Act requiring it to\nsubmit a true and correct return of its total income for AY 2011-\n12. The aforesaid notice was followed by a communication dated 22\nDecember 2022 under Section 142(1) requiring the petitioner to\nproduce accounts and documents as per the annexure appended\nthereto. A follow-up notice under Section

DCIT CC 2 2 , CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD, CHENNAI

ITA 1260/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 153CSection 250Section 80G

153C of the Act requiring it to\nsubmit a true and correct return of its total income for AY 2011-\n12. The aforesaid notice was followed by a communication dated 22\nDecember 2022 under Section 142(1) requiring the petitioner to\nproduce accounts and documents as per the annexure appended\nthereto. A follow-up notice under Section

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

ITA 1613/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 1613 To 1615/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20

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

bogus purchases were identical in both the AYs 2018-19 & 2019 19 & 2019-20 impugned before us. Both the parties have Both the parties have also argued these appeals together. eals together. Hence, for the sake of convenience, Hence, for the sake of convenience, ITA Nos.1613 to 1615 1613 to 1615 /Chny/2025 & ITA Nos.1547 & 1548/Chny/2025 ITA Nos.1547 & 1548/Chny/2025

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

ITA 1614/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 1613 To 1615/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20

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

bogus purchases were identical in both the AYs 2018-19 & 2019 19 & 2019-20 impugned before us. Both the parties have Both the parties have also argued these appeals together. eals together. Hence, for the sake of convenience, Hence, for the sake of convenience, ITA Nos.1613 to 1615 1613 to 1615 /Chny/2025 & ITA Nos.1547 & 1548/Chny/2025 ITA Nos.1547 & 1548/Chny/2025

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

ITA 1615/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 1613 To 1615/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20

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

bogus purchases were identical in both the AYs 2018-19 & 2019 19 & 2019-20 impugned before us. Both the parties have Both the parties have also argued these appeals together. eals together. Hence, for the sake of convenience, Hence, for the sake of convenience, ITA Nos.1613 to 1615 1613 to 1615 /Chny/2025 & ITA Nos.1547 & 1548/Chny/2025 ITA Nos.1547 & 1548/Chny/2025

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), CHENNAI

ITA 1548/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos. 1613 To 1615/Chny/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 & 2019-20

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

bogus purchases were identical in both the AYs 2018-19 & 2019 19 & 2019-20 impugned before us. Both the parties have Both the parties have also argued these appeals together. eals together. Hence, for the sake of convenience, Hence, for the sake of convenience, ITA Nos.1613 to 1615 1613 to 1615 /Chny/2025 & ITA Nos.1547 & 1548/Chny/2025 ITA Nos.1547 & 1548/Chny/2025

SOUTHERN AGRIFURANE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2),, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the\nassessee are dismissed

ITA 1235/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 153CSection 250Section 80G

bogus purchases. Apart from the\nforegoing, the AO is also noted to have made addition(s)/disallowance(s)\non account of deduction(s) claimed u/s 80G / 80GGB, disallowance u/s\n14A of the Act and disallowance of certain items of expenses.\n3. Aggrieved by the above order(s) of the AO, the assessee preferred\nappeal before

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD

ITA/177/2015HC Delhi30 Oct 2015

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

For Appellant: Mr N.P. Sahni, Senior Standing Counsel withFor Respondent: Mr Kapil Goyal and Mr V.M. Chaurasia
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 260ASection 69C

purchases being bogus in nature could be disallowed as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. He further argued that the Assessee was only a paper company and used for capital formation. 10. We heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 11. The principal issue to be addressed is whether the assessments made under Section 153C

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD

ITA/176/2015HC Delhi30 Oct 2015

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

For Appellant: Mr N.P. Sahni, Senior Standing Counsel withFor Respondent: Mr Kapil Goyal and Mr V.M. Chaurasia
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 260ASection 69C

purchases being bogus in nature could be disallowed as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. He further argued that the Assessee was only a paper company and used for capital formation. 10. We heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 11. The principal issue to be addressed is whether the assessments made under Section 153C

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD

ITA/164/2015HC Delhi30 Oct 2015

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

For Appellant: Mr N.P. Sahni, Senior Standing Counsel withFor Respondent: Mr Kapil Goyal and Mr V.M. Chaurasia
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 260ASection 69C

purchases being bogus in nature could be disallowed as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. He further argued that the Assessee was only a paper company and used for capital formation. 10. We heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 11. The principal issue to be addressed is whether the assessments made under Section 153C

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD

ITA/175/2015HC Delhi30 Oct 2015

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

For Appellant: Mr N.P. Sahni, Senior Standing Counsel withFor Respondent: Mr Kapil Goyal and Mr V.M. Chaurasia
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 260ASection 69C

purchases being bogus in nature could be disallowed as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. He further argued that the Assessee was only a paper company and used for capital formation. 10. We heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 11. The principal issue to be addressed is whether the assessments made under Section 153C

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD.

ITA-176/2015HC Delhi30 Oct 2015

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

For Appellant: Mr N.P. Sahni, Senior Standing Counsel withFor Respondent: Mr Kapil Goyal and Mr V.M. Chaurasia
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 260ASection 69C

purchases being bogus in nature could be disallowed as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. He further argued that the Assessee was only a paper company and used for capital formation. 10. We heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 11. The principal issue to be addressed is whether the assessments made under Section 153C

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 vs. RRJ SECURITIES LTD.

ITA-177/2015HC Delhi30 Oct 2015

Bench: The Tribunal, Were Filed By The Revenue (Being

For Appellant: Mr N.P. Sahni, Senior Standing Counsel withFor Respondent: Mr Kapil Goyal and Mr V.M. Chaurasia
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 260ASection 69C

purchases being bogus in nature could be disallowed as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Act. He further argued that the Assessee was only a paper company and used for capital formation. 10. We heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 11. The principal issue to be addressed is whether the assessments made under Section 153C