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 251clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai184Delhi91Jaipur63Chandigarh51Bangalore28Surat25Rajkot22Chennai21Nagpur16Raipur14Kolkata14Ahmedabad12Guwahati12Lucknow10Indore9Pune7Hyderabad6Varanasi2Jodhpur2Allahabad2Amritsar2Jabalpur1Cochin1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 1482

ELIZABETH JOSE,ERNAKULAM vs. DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), ERNAKULAM

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 522/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 Elizbeth Jose .......... Appellant Choice House, P.V. Sreedharan Road Kumbalam, Ernakulam 682506 [Pan: Acfpj2569J] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle - 1(1), Kochi .......... Respondent Assessee By: ------- None ------- Revenue By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.08.2025 O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 12.06.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual. The Return Of Income For Ay 2016-17 Was Filed On 03.08 Disclosing Total Income Of Rs. 14,71,400/- & Unabsorbed Short Term Capital Loss Of Rs. 35,89,251/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 18.12.2018 Passed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Accepting

For Appellant: ------- None -------For Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(47)

251/-. 3 Elizbeth Jose 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide the impugned order held that the appellant had resorted to bogus transaction with her husband. 5. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 6. When the appeal was called on nobody appeared on behalf