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.

1,646 results for “condonation of delay”+ Bogus Purchasesclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai441Kolkata273Chennai173Delhi134Karnataka100Ahmedabad79Jaipur65Surat59Bangalore46Calcutta42Amritsar35Chandigarh26Pune25Hyderabad21Raipur19Nagpur18Indore14Lucknow14Cuttack13Rajkot10Visakhapatnam9Varanasi5Jodhpur4Patna4Agra3Dehradun3Allahabad3Telangana3Jabalpur2Guwahati1Cochin1Ranchi1

Key Topics

Addition to Income81Section 14761Section 14860Section 143(3)57Section 6839Section 14437Disallowance33Section 25024Natural Justice24Condonation of Delay

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the above terms

ITA 156/HYD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Respondent: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakhsmi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 40a

condoning the delay. and the remaining ground nos.4 to 16 for discussion can be summarized as follows: 1) Ground 4: Disallowance of Rs.24,94,00,000 under section 40A(3) of the Act. 2) Grounds 5 to 7: Disallowance of Rs.21,08,45,001 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 3) Grounds 8 and 9: Payments made

Showing 1–20 of 1,646 · Page 1 of 83

...
23
Limitation/Time-bar23
Bogus Purchases20

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

delay, it was agreed to declare the purchases made from certain parties as its income. Meanwhile it was in the process of obtaining confirmations from suppliers. It could obtain confirmations from Mr. Abdul Rasheed and Mr. Sayyad Ebrahim. Confirmations received from parties were produced before us. Hence, the income admitted during the search proceedings in respect of said suppliers

SHRI MANOJ AMAR CHAND TAILOR,MASUDA BIJAINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BEAWAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 910/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Ms Savita Bundas (CIT)
Section 147

condone the delay in filing this appeal and decided to take the appeal on its merits. 4. Both these appeals are cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue for the same assessment year. The Grounds of appeal raised by each party are as under:- ITA No. 910/JP/2019 (Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, BEAWAR vs. SHRI MANOJ AMAR CHAND TAILOR, MASUDA BIJAINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 819/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Ms Savita Bundas (CIT)
Section 147

condone the delay in filing this appeal and decided to take the appeal on its merits. 4. Both these appeals are cross appeals filed by the assessee and revenue for the same assessment year. The Grounds of appeal raised by each party are as under:- ITA No. 910/JP/2019 (Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee

NIRMAL KUMAR AGRAWAL,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4 , JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1224/JPR/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2025AY 2013-2014
For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR
Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

bogus - Assessee filed appeal before Tribunal after delay of 2208 days - Assessee filed an application to condone delay along with affidavit explaining cause for delay that order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) was never served upon assessee - Tribunal dismissed application observing that order of Commissioner (Appeals) was delivered on address mentioned in Form no. 35, hence , department could not be blamed

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 146/CHANDI/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

bogus purchases, the theory that the transaction defies human probability cannot be applied to purchases in isolation, but has to be applied to the entire transaction in the light of documentary evidences produced by the assessee; and that where the sales are accepted as genuine, the purchases cannot be disallowed. 12.5 The decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 148/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

bogus purchases, the theory that the transaction defies human probability cannot be applied to purchases in isolation, but has to be applied to the entire transaction in the light of documentary evidences produced by the assessee; and that where the sales are accepted as genuine, the purchases cannot be disallowed. 12.5 The decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal

M/S DIN DAYAL PURSOTAM LAL,SIRSA vs. PR.CIT, ROHTAK

ITA 147/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 263Section 40A(3)

bogus purchases, the theory that the transaction defies human probability cannot be applied to purchases in isolation, but has to be applied to the entire transaction in the light of documentary evidences produced by the assessee; and that where the sales are accepted as genuine, the purchases cannot be disallowed. 12.5 The decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1699/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Since these appeals relate to the related companies and issues involved are mostly common, therefore these are being decided by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. First of all, we shall take 1395/KOL/2025 (assessee’s appeal) A.Y. 2015-16 in case of Balmukund Sponge and Iron

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND SPONGE AND IRON PRIVATE LIMITED, PATNA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1596/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Since these appeals relate to the related companies and issues involved are mostly common, therefore these are being decided by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. First of all, we shall take 1395/KOL/2025 (assessee’s appeal) A.Y. 2015-16 in case of Balmukund Sponge and Iron

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1702/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Since these appeals relate to the related companies and issues involved are mostly common, therefore these are being decided by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. First of all, we shall take 1395/KOL/2025 (assessee’s appeal) A.Y. 2015-16 in case of Balmukund Sponge and Iron

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. BALMUKUND CEMENT & ROOFINGS PRIVATE LIMITED , KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1703/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Since these appeals relate to the related companies and issues involved are mostly common, therefore these are being decided by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. First of all, we shall take 1395/KOL/2025 (assessee’s appeal) A.Y. 2015-16 in case of Balmukund Sponge and Iron

GOPAL & SONS HUF,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 32(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1701/KOL/2024[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2025AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 3. Since these appeals relate to the related companies and issues involved are mostly common, therefore these are being decided by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. First of all, we shall take 1395/KOL/2025 (assessee’s appeal) A.Y. 2015-16 in case of Balmukund Sponge and Iron

ARORA BROTHERS FASHIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. WARD 12(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

Appeal are dismissed as being without merit

ITA 1211/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Shri Raj Singh Meel
Section 147

condonation of delay in filing the appeal by four days. 2. On the facts, and in circumstances of the case, and in law, learned Commissioner of income the (Appeal) erred in partially upholding action of the Assessing Officer in restricting the disallowance of purchases amounting to RS. 23,371.849/- to 12.5% of the quantum addition without appreciating that the addition

INCOME TAX OFFICER-12(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ARORA BROTHERS FASHIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Appeal are dismissed as being without merit

ITA 1011/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Shri Raj Singh Meel
Section 147

condonation of delay in filing the appeal by four days. 2. On the facts, and in circumstances of the case, and in law, learned Commissioner of income the (Appeal) erred in partially upholding action of the Assessing Officer in restricting the disallowance of purchases amounting to RS. 23,371.849/- to 12.5% of the quantum addition without appreciating that the addition

NAVEEN KISHOR MOHNOT,MUMBAI vs. ITO-25(3)(5), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 325/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blenaveen Kishor Mohnot V. Income Tax Officer –25(3)(5) 3Rd Floor, Monami Apartments C-10, Room No. 609, 6Th Floor Behind Chandan Cinema, Juhu Pratyakshkar Bhavan Mumbai - 400049 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051 Pan: Abgpj1360D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Jayant Bhatt Department Represented By : Shri S.N. Kabra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 6. On merits, we observe that assessee has filed its return of income on 29.07.2011 declaring total income of ₹.6, 67,900/-. Based on the information received from the Investigation Wing that the assessee has dealt in sale and purchase of shares of M/s. VAS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, which is a penny

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, LUDHIANA vs. MALBROS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD, FARIDKOT

In the result, both the appeals and the Cross Objections are dismissed

ITA 992/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18, 2016-17 The Dcit, Vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-2, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Ludhiana. Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & C.O. Nos. 46 & 45/Chd/2024 In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 992 & 993/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18, 2016-17 Malbros International Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Village – Mansoorwal, Teh-Zira, Vs Central Circle-2, Head Offices Old Cantt. Road, Ludhiana. Faridkot. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aadcm7203R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 249Section 253Section 3Section 5

condone the alleged delay and proceed to decide the Cross Objections on merit in both the assessment years. 7. The Revenue has taken four grounds of appeal in each ITA No.992 & 993/CHD/2024 & CO 46 & 45/CHD/2024 A.Y.2017-18 & 2016-17 7 assessment year. In brief, its grievance revolves around a single issue and the issues pleaded in rest of the grounds

ITO, WARD -2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI MAYUR ASHESHBHAI JOSHI, SURAT

In the result the ground No

ITA 66/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)

bogus purchases, the Ld. CIT(A) also relied on the judgment of jurisdictional ITAT, Surat and Ahmedabad. 10. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee as well as Revenue are in appeal before us. 11. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee states before the Bench that in the case of M/s. Sonu Dharmichand Bafna (in ITA No.167/SRT/2021

ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. SHRI PARAG NARESHBHAI MEHTA, SURAT

In the result the ground No

ITA 65/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)

bogus purchases, the Ld. CIT(A) also relied on the judgment of jurisdictional ITAT, Surat and Ahmedabad. 10. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee as well as Revenue are in appeal before us. 11. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee states before the Bench that in the case of M/s. Sonu Dharmichand Bafna (in ITA No.167/SRT/2021

PARAG NARESHBHAI MEHTA PROP. OF DEEKSHA TRADING ,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(3)(8), , SURAT

In the result the ground No

ITA 169/SRT/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

Section 143(3)

bogus purchases, the Ld. CIT(A) also relied on the judgment of jurisdictional ITAT, Surat and Ahmedabad. 10. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee as well as Revenue are in appeal before us. 11. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee states before the Bench that in the case of M/s. Sonu Dharmichand Bafna (in ITA No.167/SRT/2021