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.

10 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 111Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi10Ahmedabad9Mumbai7Indore5Kolkata5Hyderabad4Nagpur3Bangalore1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)14Section 14A13Section 26310Capital Gains9Business Income9Long Term Capital Gains8Short Term Capital Gains7Addition to Income6Section 111A5

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI RAJIV KAPOOR, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4989/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Laliet Kumarita No. 4989/Del /2012 [Assessment Year: 2008-09] The A.C.I.T Vs. Shri Rajiv Kapooor Circle - 22(1) C/O H.L. Kapoor Investment & New Delhi Financial Consultants 5, Trimurti Building [Basement], Community Centre, New Friends Colony, New Delhi Pan : Aampk 0195 Q [Appellant] [Respondent] Department By : Shri Kartar Singh, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Amit Sharma, Ca Shri Prashant Sharma, Ca Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2016 Order

For Appellant: Shri Amit Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kartar Singh, CIT-DR
Section 194H

111A. Thus, the statute categorically allows that shares may be capital assets, and specifically short term capital assets, even if held for a duration of 1 day or just under 12 months. {4.2} It has further been argued on behalf of the appellant that circular No. 4 dated 15.06.2007 of the CBDT provides that an assessee may be both

NARENDRA AGGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. PR. CIT- 7, DELHI

Section 10(38)4
Disallowance4
Section 80I3

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 456/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Kuldip Singh

Section 143(3)Section 263

purchase and sales of the shares were submitted along with the necessary evidences. He pointed that the copy of the D-mat Account, contract note for sale of shares were also filed before the AO. Thereafter Learned AR pointed to the copies of assessee’s reply dated 18.12.2017 wherein on the observation of the AO to the effect that

PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3785/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant, Accountantmember

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

111A of the Act applicable from the AY 2005-06, the assessee cannot be categorized as an investor, especially when the aforesaid facts speak otherwise and the Id. AR did not place any material, other than resolution dated 22.4.2005, before us while the auditor reports and facts for the years under consideration reflecting intention of the assessee, lead

PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-20(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly

ITA 2087/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri O.P. Kant[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14A

111A of the Act applicable from the AY 2005-06, the assessee cannot be categorized as an investor, especially when the aforesaid facts speak otherwise and the Id. AR did not place any material, other than resolution dated 22.4.2005, before us while the auditor reports and facts for the years under consideration reflecting intention of the assessee, lead

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5054/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Ms. Paramita Tripathi, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Rastogi, Adv
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14A

111A of the Act applicable from the AY 2005-06, the assessee cannot be categorised as an investor, especially when the aforesaid facts speak otherwise and the Id. AR did not place any material, other than resolution dated 22.4.2005, before us while the auditor reports and facts for the years under consideration reflecting intention of the assessee, lead

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3078/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Ms. Paramita Tripathi, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Rastogi, Adv
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14A

111A of the Act applicable from the AY 2005-06, the assessee cannot be categorised as an investor, especially when the aforesaid facts speak otherwise and the Id. AR did not place any material, other than resolution dated 22.4.2005, before us while the auditor reports and facts for the years under consideration reflecting intention of the assessee, lead

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 820/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Ms. Paramita Tripathi, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Rastogi, Adv
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14A

111A of the Act applicable from the AY 2005-06, the assessee cannot be categorised as an investor, especially when the aforesaid facts speak otherwise and the Id. AR did not place any material, other than resolution dated 22.4.2005, before us while the auditor reports and facts for the years under consideration reflecting intention of the assessee, lead

ADDL. CIT, SPECIAL RANGE-7, NEW DELHI vs. PURAN ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 5656/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.M. Singh, Sr.DR
Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14A

111A of the Act applicable from the AY 2005-06, the assessee cannot be categorized as an investor, especially when the aforesaid facts speak otherwise and the Id. AR did not place any material, other than resolution dated 22.4.2005, before us while the auditor reports and facts for the years under consideration reflecting intention of the assessee, lead

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PURAN ASSOCIATES (P) LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 701/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Rastogi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14A

111A of the Act applicable from the AY 2005-06, the assessee cannot be categorised as an investor, especially when the aforesaid facts speak otherwise and the Id. AR did not place any material, other than resolution dated 22.4.2005, before us while the auditor reports and facts for the years under consideration reflecting intention of the assessee, lead

M/S. MADURA BIOTECH (P) LTD.,HARIDWAR vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed partly with consequences to follow as per determination of grounds above

ITA 2593/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2010-11 Madura Biotech (P) Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.146-149, Sector I.I.D.C., Circle-6(1), Sidcul Ranipur, New Delhi. Haridwar. Pan: Aafcm8070L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tanpreet Kohli, Ca Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali & Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Drs Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Tanpreet Kohli, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali &
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

111A of the Act applicable from the AY 2005-06, the assessee cannot be categorised as an investor especially when the aforesaid facts speak otherwise and lead us to the conclusion that the assessee is indulging in activities of a trader in shares. As observed in Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency Ltd. (supra), it is a manner of first impression