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.

2,163 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 263clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai498Delhi457Kolkata208Jaipur197Karnataka105Ahmedabad79Bangalore74Chandigarh70Chennai61Pune51Surat49Indore45Calcutta40Rajkot35Lucknow28Guwahati24Hyderabad23Raipur19Nagpur18Agra16Cuttack14Jodhpur13Amritsar9Ranchi6Varanasi5Jabalpur5Patna5Panaji2Dehradun2Allahabad2Telangana1SC1Visakhapatnam1

Key Topics

Section 26393Section 143(3)83Section 14781Addition to Income79Section 14843Section 153A39Section 13228Section 6826Section 69A25Bogus Purchases

DCIT - CC 3(1), MUMBAI vs. WIND WORLD INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1353/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

bogus purchases is not correct. 7.15 The contentions of the assessee have been duly considered. One of the contentions of the assessee is that in course of the search action, no incriminating evidences were found and the relevant year was a non-abated assessment, therefore as per the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case

Showing 1–20 of 2,163 · Page 1 of 109

...
24
Disallowance23
Search & Seizure22

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3 (1), MUMBAI vs. WIND WORLD INDIA LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1352/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

bogus purchases is not correct. 7.15 The contentions of the assessee have been duly considered. One of the contentions of the assessee is that in course of the search action, no incriminating evidences were found and the relevant year was a non-abated assessment, therefore as per the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), MUMBAI vs. WIND WORLD INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1354/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

bogus purchases is not correct. 7.15 The contentions of the assessee have been duly considered. One of the contentions of the assessee is that in course of the search action, no incriminating evidences were found and the relevant year was a non-abated assessment, therefore as per the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), MUMBAI vs. WIND WORLD INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1910/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

bogus purchases is not correct. 7.15 The contentions of the assessee have been duly considered. One of the contentions of the assessee is that in course of the search action, no incriminating evidences were found and the relevant year was a non-abated assessment, therefore as per the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case

WIND WORLD INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1465/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

bogus purchases is not correct. 7.15 The contentions of the assessee have been duly considered. One of the contentions of the assessee is that in course of the search action, no incriminating evidences were found and the relevant year was a non-abated assessment, therefore as per the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case

DCIT - CC 3 (1), MUMBAI vs. WIND WORLD INDIA LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1355/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

bogus purchases is not correct. 7.15 The contentions of the assessee have been duly considered. One of the contentions of the assessee is that in course of the search action, no incriminating evidences were found and the relevant year was a non-abated assessment, therefore as per the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case

WIND WORLD INDIA LIMITEAD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1469/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

bogus purchases is not correct. 7.15 The contentions of the assessee have been duly considered. One of the contentions of the assessee is that in course of the search action, no incriminating evidences were found and the relevant year was a non-abated assessment, therefore as per the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case

WIND WORLD INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1467/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

bogus purchases is not correct. 7.15 The contentions of the assessee have been duly considered. One of the contentions of the assessee is that in course of the search action, no incriminating evidences were found and the relevant year was a non-abated assessment, therefore as per the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case

WIND WORLD INDIA LIMITEAD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1470/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

bogus purchases is not correct. 7.15 The contentions of the assessee have been duly considered. One of the contentions of the assessee is that in course of the search action, no incriminating evidences were found and the relevant year was a non-abated assessment, therefore as per the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case

WIND WORLD INDIA LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3 (1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1468/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

bogus purchases is not correct. 7.15 The contentions of the assessee have been duly considered. One of the contentions of the assessee is that in course of the search action, no incriminating evidences were found and the relevant year was a non-abated assessment, therefore as per the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case

WIND WORLD INDIA LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA number

ITA 1466/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

bogus purchases is not correct. 7.15 The contentions of the assessee have been duly considered. One of the contentions of the assessee is that in course of the search action, no incriminating evidences were found and the relevant year was a non-abated assessment, therefore as per the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case

VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

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

ITA 2217/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 143Section 153Section 153CSection 234ASection 263Section 69C

263 of the Act. We further observed that the incriminating material found during the search not only discloses the details of bogus purchases and also disclosed details about bogus sales. Ld. PCIT is silent on this aspect. 10. Further we observed that Assessing Officer had not dealt with the issue of section

VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

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

ITA 2216/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 143Section 153Section 153CSection 234ASection 263Section 69C

263 of the Act. We further observed that the incriminating material found during the search not only discloses the details of bogus purchases and also disclosed details about bogus sales. Ld. PCIT is silent on this aspect. 10. Further we observed that Assessing Officer had not dealt with the issue of section

VAKSONS METAPLAST PVT LTD,DELHI vs. PCIT(CENTRAL), DELHI

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

ITA 2218/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 143Section 153Section 153CSection 234ASection 263Section 69C

263 of the Act. We further observed that the incriminating material found during the search not only discloses the details of bogus purchases and also disclosed details about bogus sales. Ld. PCIT is silent on this aspect. 10. Further we observed that Assessing Officer had not dealt with the issue of section

M/S. PARAS PLASTIC PROCESSORS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-27(2)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5593/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Paras Plastic Processors, Income Tax Officer 806/807, Ajit Nath, Ward-27(2)(5), Nilkantha Enclave, Ajit Nagar, Vs. Vashi, Opp. Shreyash Cinema, Navi Mumbai-400-703. Lbs Marg, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai-400086. Pan No. Aaefp 8206 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. M. Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Nair, DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

section 145(3) of the IT Act and after taking average GP rate of 15%, made an addition of rate of 15%, made an addition of Rs.54,03,687/- computed on such computed on such bogus purchas bogus purchases/expenses. This order was set aside by the es/expenses. This order was set aside by the jurisdictional CIT u/s 263

HORIZON DWELLINGS PRIVATE LIMITED,BAREILLY vs. PCIT, BAREILLY

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

ITA 77/LKW/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriahorizon Dwellings Pvt Ltd V. Pcit, Bareilly, Navjeevan Appartments, Income Tax Department, Opposite Parag Factory, Bareilly (Up)-243001. Badaun Road, Kargaina, Bareilly-243001. Pan:Aacch6839F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl. Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl
Section 143(3)Section 263

purchases by the assessee from Jour parties mentioned by the DIT (Investigation) Mumbai in its report were bogus. The decision of the Mumbai and Delhi ITAT in the case of M/s. Shri Narayan Tatu Rane (supra) and M/s. Amira Pure Foods (P) Ltd. (supra) cited by the Ld. AR clearly supports the view that Explanation-2 to sec. 263

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

purchase price being inflated cannot be ruled out and there is no material to dislodge such finding. The issue is not whether the purchase price reflected in the books of account matches the purchase price stated to have been paid to other persons. The issue is whether the purchase price paid by the assessee is reflected as receipts

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1), RAIPUR vs. SHANTA TECHNO PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR

ITA 155/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 155/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2018-19)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

section 145(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer acquired the mandate even to add the whole amount of purchases found as bogus to the total income of the assessee. One such case was Sri Ganesh Rice Mills Vs. CIT 294 ITR 316 (All) wherein the entire amount of bogus purchases, from 5 parties, was disallowed and same was also

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

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

ITA 472/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

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

section 69C of the Act and for which no evidence has been 69C of the Act and for which no evidence has been 69C of the Act and for which no evidence has been furnished to the contrary in the support of the claim of the furnished to the contrary in the support of the claim of the furnished

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

section 69C of the Act and for which no evidence has been 69C of the Act and for which no evidence has been 69C of the Act and for which no evidence has been furnished to the contrary in the support of the claim of the furnished to the contrary in the support of the claim of the furnished