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.

8 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 292Cclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi197Mumbai87Bangalore50Jaipur49Kolkata42Chennai40Hyderabad18Nagpur14Rajkot12Pune11Chandigarh8Surat7Allahabad6Ahmedabad6Jodhpur4Indore4Agra3Panaji2Raipur2Guwahati1Cuttack1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Addition to Income8Limitation/Time-bar8

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 323/CHANDI/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

292C of the I. T. Act, 1961 the onus lies on the assessee to explain the contents of these documents, sin.ce they were seized from his residence. The assessee was asked to show cause vide order sheet noting dated 13.03.2013 why the expense recorded on these documents should not be treated unexplained expenditure u/s 69C, since he has failed

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 322/CHANDI/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

292C of the I. T. Act, 1961 the onus lies on the assessee to explain the contents of these documents, sin.ce they were seized from his residence. The assessee was asked to show cause vide order sheet noting dated 13.03.2013 why the expense recorded on these documents should not be treated unexplained expenditure u/s 69C, since he has failed

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 325/CHANDI/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

292C of the I. T. Act, 1961 the onus lies on the assessee to explain the contents of these documents, sin.ce they were seized from his residence. The assessee was asked to show cause vide order sheet noting dated 13.03.2013 why the expense recorded on these documents should not be treated unexplained expenditure u/s 69C, since he has failed

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 319/CHANDI/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

292C of the I. T. Act, 1961 the onus lies on the assessee to explain the contents of these documents, sin.ce they were seized from his residence. The assessee was asked to show cause vide order sheet noting dated 13.03.2013 why the expense recorded on these documents should not be treated unexplained expenditure u/s 69C, since he has failed

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS, SHIMLA

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 345/CHANDI/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

292C of the I. T. Act, 1961 the onus lies on the assessee to explain the contents of these documents, sin.ce they were seized from his residence. The assessee was asked to show cause vide order sheet noting dated 13.03.2013 why the expense recorded on these documents should not be treated unexplained expenditure u/s 69C, since he has failed

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 320/CHANDI/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

292C of the I. T. Act, 1961 the onus lies on the assessee to explain the contents of these documents, sin.ce they were seized from his residence. The assessee was asked to show cause vide order sheet noting dated 13.03.2013 why the expense recorded on these documents should not be treated unexplained expenditure u/s 69C, since he has failed

M/S AJAY KUMAR SOOD ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 321/CHANDI/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

292C of the I. T. Act, 1961 the onus lies on the assessee to explain the contents of these documents, sin.ce they were seized from his residence. The assessee was asked to show cause vide order sheet noting dated 13.03.2013 why the expense recorded on these documents should not be treated unexplained expenditure u/s 69C, since he has failed

SH. AJAY GOEL,SHIMLA vs. DCIT, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 137/CHANDI/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. Manjit Singh

292C of the I. T. Act, 1961 the onus lies on the assessee to explain the contents of these documents, sin.ce they were seized from his residence. The assessee was asked to show cause vide order sheet noting dated 13.03.2013 why the expense recorded on these documents should not be treated unexplained expenditure u/s 69C, since he has failed