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 result for “bogus purchases”+ Section 44Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi15Mumbai2Bangalore1

Key Topics

Section 271A8Section 44A3Section 1482Section 69A2

SMT. VANI RAMACHANDRAN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(1), BANGALORE

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

ITA 1057/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahusmt. Vani Ramachandran Vs The Income Tax Officer-3(2)(1) 40, Vishram, 4Th Main Bmtc Building Kalyan Nagar Koramangala Bangalore 560072 Bangalore 560095 Pan – Ajtpr2276F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ravishankar S.V., Advocate Revenue By: Shri Gudimella Vp Pavan Kumar, Jcit Date Of Hearing: 14.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.03.2023 O R D E R Per: George George K., J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A) Dated 03.11.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act). The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Several Grounds & Also Additional Grounds. However, The Solitary Issue That Was Argued By The Learned A.R. Was Whether The Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.25,000/- Imposed Under Section 271A Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, JCIT
Section 144Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271ASection 274
Section 44A
Section 69A

purchase and sale of only 10 shares of M/s. NCL Research. The learned A.R. submitted that the assessee was having only income from capital gains and other sources and there was no necessity to maintain books of account in terms of Section 44AA of the Act. Therefore, the learned A.R. submitted that the penalty imposed under Section 271A