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.

5 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 54Fclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai38Delhi21Jaipur8Kolkata7Ahmedabad5Pune3Indore3Telangana3Chennai2Nagpur2Hyderabad2Bangalore1Karnataka1Chandigarh1Cuttack1Raipur1Surat1

Key Topics

Section 54F15Section 10(38)5Section 54B4Long Term Capital Gains4Addition to Income4Section 143(3)3Deduction3Exemption3House Property2

DCIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ALPESHKUMAR C.PATEL, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1991/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1908/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Alpeshkumar C. Patel, A.C.I.T., 503, Milestone Building, Vs. Circle-3(3), Drive In Road, Ahmedabad. Thaltej, Ahmedabad-380052. Pan: Aeapp9489G

For Appellant: Shri Deepak R. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Pratap Singh CIT. D.R with Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.D.R
Section 41(1)Section 54F

section 54F of the Act, the assessee submitted that AO has disallowed the claim by alleging bogus expenditure. As such the purchases

VINIT BIPINCHANDRA SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(3) (PREVIOUSLY WARD-5(2)(4)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 587/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 54ASection 54F

54F of the Act was denied. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the grounds as raised by the assessee. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.25,81,731/- on account of LTCG as upheld by the Ld. CIT(A), is confirmed. Ground nos.1, 2 &4 as raised by the assessee are dismissed. 8. Ground no.3 pertains to addition of Rs.27

SHRI BALDEVBHAI ATMARAM PATEL,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 1911/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri D. K. Parikh, A. RFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Dev, Sr. D. R
Section 271(1)(c)Section 54BSection 54F

purchase of plot for construction of one new asset i.e. residential house, he is not entitled to exemption for another house u/s 54F of the Act, still appellant has claimed it in Return of Income which prove beyond doubt that appellant has willfully claimed higher exemption which are not provided in Income tax Act. (iii) The appellant has claimed cost

JIGNASA ATULKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR.CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1140/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69A

bogus accommodation entries operated and managed by entry operator Shri Naresh Jain. The information also suggests that the assessee is one of the beneficiaries in manipulation of share price of M/s. Oasis Tradelink Ltd. amounting to Rs.40,95,442/- and assessee claimed Long Term Capital Gain exempt u/s. 10(38) of the Act amounting to Rs.37,24,755/-. Therefore

SHRI ASHISH D. JAISWAL,,SABARKANTHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, S.K. WARD-4,, MODASA

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

ITA 543/AHD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.543/Ahd/2015 – Ay 2007-08 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.544/Ahd/2015 – Ay 2007-08 3. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.545/Ahd/2015 – Ay 2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Jayant Jhaveri, Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 68

section 153 of the Act. 4. The first issue raised by the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in treating the Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) as income from other sources amounting to Rs. 5,26,461/- only, consequently, denying the exemptions claimed u/s 10(38) of the Act. 5. Briefly stated facts are that the assessee