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.

4 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 54clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai829Delhi390Jaipur146Kolkata120Chennai112Bangalore98Chandigarh73Ahmedabad60Cochin57Hyderabad49Amritsar47Rajkot45Indore44Raipur38Surat36Visakhapatnam34Allahabad28Lucknow23Pune20Jodhpur18Guwahati18Nagpur18Agra17Patna14Dehradun10Cuttack4Jabalpur2Ranchi1Varanasi1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 269S8Section 54F5Section 271D4Addition to Income4Section 10(38)2Section 1322Exemption2Penalty2Search & Seizure2

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PURI vs. KRUSHNA CHANDRA PUJAPANDA, PURI

In the result, appeal of the revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objection of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 448/CTK/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack05 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.448/Ctk/2024 C.O. No.06/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2022-23) Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Vs Krushna Chandra Pujapanda, Bhavan, Penthakata, Puri Matimandap Sahi, H.O.Puri Town, Puri. Pan No. : Abdpp 0879 N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kumar Chatterjee, Ca : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Ld Cit राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 5 /12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 5 /12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 4.9.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi In Appeal No.Nfac/2021-22/10363554 For The Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. The Cross Objection Is Filed By The Assessee In Appeal Filed By The Revenue In Ita No.448/Ctk/2024. 3. Shri Ashok Kumar Chatterjee, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue.

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Chatterjee, CA
Section 54Section 54F

54 and 54F of the Act, it is stated that the new asset should be registered in the name of the assessee himself, who claims the deduction and it would be sufficient if the sale proceeds of the original assets are invested in the new assets within specified time as per the Act. It was submitted that the assessee

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 2024AY 2009-10
Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

54 of Paper Book Whatever addition and disclosure is made in the hand of RKDCPL, the Learned JCIT has dragged the issue and initiated the penalty proceeding in the hand of the appellant, only because a proposal was issued by the AO subsequently to take action w/s 271D/E In course of hearing, the appellant submitted a ledger copy of transaction

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

54 of Paper Book Whatever addition and disclosure is made in the hand of RKDCPL, the Learned JCIT has dragged the issue and initiated the penalty proceeding in the hand of the appellant, only because a proposal was issued by the AO subsequently to take action w/s 271D/E In course of hearing, the appellant submitted a ledger copy of transaction