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.

5 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 245Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai87Chennai20Kolkata18Visakhapatnam7Delhi5Indore2Lucknow2Hyderabad2Jaipur1

Key Topics

Section 1489Section 1476Addition to Income5Section 153A3Section 132(4)3Search & Seizure3Section 139(1)2Section 153C2Section 2512

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GURGAON vs. K.S.CHAWLA & SONS (HUF), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is found to be devoid of any merit and thus dismissed and the C

ITA 6974/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. No. 6974/Del/2018 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Acit Vs. K. S. Chawla & Sons (Huf) 7Th Floor, Hsiidc Building, Central Circle – I, Gurugram Udyog Vihar, Phase-5, Gurugram Pan: Aadhk 7622 M

For Appellant: Shri Parikshi Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Rishpal Bedi, CIT-D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 148Section 153ASection 250

bogus purchases of Rs. 53 cr(approx) and miscellaneous income, all other offer of income is based on documents related to investment/expenditure during same period, which has been explained by the applicant through its fund flow statement. Hence, telescoping has to be allowed and during hearing even the department accepted the logic that both income and expenditure during same period

Section 1322
Reassessment2
Natural Justice2

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, GURUGRAM vs. PLATINUM TOWERS P.LTD, NEW DELHI

In the result, assessee’s application under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules is allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 7714/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2023AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri T Kipgen, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 2(22)(e)

bogus purchases was its income which has been surrendered by it to the Govt. (ii) Since the company M/s Spaze Towers Pvt. Ltd. is being separately assessed to tax and being a separate legal entity, appropriation of its funds by the directors/promoters or their family members for the purpose of their personal expenses amounts to income of the directors/promoters

PARKASH SACHDEVA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 18, NEW DELHI

ITA 2889/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2025AY 2018-19
Section 143(3)Section 69A

purchasing the bogus\naccommodation entries and that the income so earned has been rolled over. The PCIT stated that\nbenefit of roll over would be admissible only if the applicant is able to show organic linkage\nbetween the source and the application of income by matching the dates and availability.\n2.4.1 From the expel sheet found during search

ASHISH KALRA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA

ITA 4308/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.4309/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2009-10) Mr. Ashish Kalra Acit, C-3/313, Mig Flats, Janakpuri, Central Circle-4, New Delhi-110058. Vs. New Delhi. Pan-Aippk0526N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Department By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/10/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [Cit(A), In Short] Dated 28.01.2019 In Appeal No. 159/2016-17 & 3/2017-18 For Asst. Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively, Both Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’). 2. Since, Both The Appeals Are Having Identical Issues, Therefore, They Are Adjudicated By A Common Order. First We Take Up The Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 In Ita No.4308/Del/2019. Ashish Kalra Vs. Acit

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 251

section 292C are also not applicable in the Ashish Kalra vs. ACIT instant case since action of search u/s 132 was not undertaken upon the 'A'. In the impugned order CIT(A) has relied upon various statements of representatives from M/s Bright. In this regard it is submitted as under: (1) Statement dated 25th November 2010 of Mr. Rashid Masood

ASHISH KALRA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA

ITA 4309/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Manish Agarwalita No.4309/Del/2019 (Assessment Year 2009-10) Mr. Ashish Kalra Acit, C-3/313, Mig Flats, Janakpuri, Central Circle-4, New Delhi-110058. Vs. New Delhi. Pan-Aippk0526N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Department By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/10/2025 O R D E R Per Manish Agarwal, Am: These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi [Cit(A), In Short] Dated 28.01.2019 In Appeal No. 159/2016-17 & 3/2017-18 For Asst. Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively, Both Arising Out Of Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’). 2. Since, Both The Appeals Are Having Identical Issues, Therefore, They Are Adjudicated By A Common Order. First We Take Up The Appeal For Assessment Year 2008-09 In Ita No.4308/Del/2019. Ashish Kalra Vs. Acit

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 251

section 292C are also not applicable in the Ashish Kalra vs. ACIT instant case since action of search u/s 132 was not undertaken upon the 'A'. In the impugned order CIT(A) has relied upon various statements of representatives from M/s Bright. In this regard it is submitted as under: (1) Statement dated 25th November 2010 of Mr. Rashid Masood