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.

3 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 154clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai307Delhi131Cochin57Bangalore57Jaipur50Kolkata45Ahmedabad34Chennai31Chandigarh27Raipur23Lucknow21Surat17Guwahati17Indore15Pune12Nagpur11Visakhapatnam7Jodhpur7Hyderabad5Rajkot5Cuttack3Patna3Allahabad2Jabalpur1Amritsar1

Key Topics

Section 269S8Section 271D4Addition to Income3Section 10(38)2Section 1322Penalty2Search & Seizure2

RASHI AGRAWAL,CUTTACKI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CUTTACK

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 56/CTK/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack04 May 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Keshav Dubey, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

Section 102 of Indian Evidence Act makes it clear that initial onus is on person who substantially asserts a claim. If the onus is discharged by him and a case is made out, the onus shifts on to deponent. It is pertinent to mention here that the phrase "burden of proof" is used in two distinct meanings

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 205/CTK/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Sept 2024
AY 2009-10
Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

bogus, the provision of ss 269SS and 269T are not attracted in the facts of the case. Even if they were to apply, in the facts and circumstances not invoking the provision of ss. 271D and 271E. In this view of the matter also the order of penalty under ss. 271D and 271E is cancelled... CIT Vs. Bazpur, Cooperative Sugar

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. HOTEL SUKHAMAYA PVT. LTD, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 206/CTK/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 Sept 2024AY 2012-13
Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

bogus, the provision of ss 269SS and 269T are not attracted in the facts of the case. Even if they were to apply, in the facts and circumstances not invoking the provision of ss. 271D and 271E. In this view of the matter also the order of penalty under ss. 271D and 271E is cancelled... CIT Vs. Bazpur, Cooperative Sugar