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.

77 results for “bogus purchases”+ Carry Forward of Lossesclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,906Delhi471Kolkata356Ahmedabad234Jaipur174Chennai123Pune122Chandigarh116Surat102Bangalore78Hyderabad77Raipur68Nagpur62Cochin58Indore51Rajkot47Guwahati46Amritsar42Calcutta36Lucknow31Visakhapatnam29Cuttack20Allahabad11Jodhpur10Patna8Karnataka8Varanasi6Telangana5Agra4Ranchi3Orissa2SC2Dehradun1Jabalpur1Panaji1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 153B72Addition to Income60Section 10A48Section 153A46Section 6846Search & Seizure33Section 13226Deduction25Section 292C24

KUPPAM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,KUPPAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), TIRUPATI

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

ITA 29/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Sancheti, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR

carried the relevant VAT registration numbers etc. As such the said purchases were genuine and were made in the normal course. As such there were no bogus bills/Purchases so as to be subjected to an addition on that ground. Hence the Ld. AR prayed that this ground raised by the assessee be allowed. 13.3 Per contra, the Ld. DR placed

DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDRABAD vs. KALPTARU INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1077/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1077/Hyd/2025

Showing 1–20 of 77 · Page 1 of 4

Section 143(3)24
Penalty24
Section 271(1)(c)18
For Appellant: Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 147Section 148

bogus claim of the 13 ITA.No.1077/Hyd./2025 assessee from the reverse and circular transactions carried out by the assessee. The assessee carried out premeditated and circularised transactions with the sole purpose of generating artificial/bogus profit/loss to the respective parties. The learned DR further submitted that when a specific and reliable information relevant for assessment of income of the assessee

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

ITA 554/HYD/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 153A

bogus purchases/ unexplained & unverifiable expenses as applicable to various vendors as noticed during the search and survey proceedings conducted in group cases. 3.2. Submission We wish to provide our detailed submission as below against the ground raised by the Revenue in connection with the disallowance of the CWIP: Unexplained investment 3.2.1. We submit that the learned AO has erred

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

ITA 553/HYD/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 153A

bogus purchases/ unexplained & unverifiable expenses as applicable to various vendors as noticed during the search and survey proceedings conducted in group cases. 3.2. Submission We wish to provide our detailed submission as below against the ground raised by the Revenue in connection with the disallowance of the CWIP: Unexplained investment 3.2.1. We submit that the learned AO has erred

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELCOM INFRASTRUTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

ITA 510/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Nov 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 153A

bogus purchases/ unexplained & unverifiable expenses as applicable to various vendors as noticed during the search and survey proceedings conducted in group cases. 3.2. Submission We wish to provide our detailed submission as below against the ground raised by the Revenue in connection with the disallowance of the CWIP: Unexplained investment 3.2.1. We submit that the learned AO has erred

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

ITA 556/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 153A

bogus purchases/ unexplained & unverifiable expenses as applicable to various vendors as noticed during the search and survey proceedings conducted in group cases. 3.2. Submission We wish to provide our detailed submission as below against the ground raised by the Revenue in connection with the disallowance of the CWIP: Unexplained investment 3.2.1. We submit that the learned AO has erred

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELCOM INFRASTRUTURE PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

ITA 509/HYD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 153A

bogus purchases/ unexplained & unverifiable expenses as applicable to various vendors as noticed during the search and survey proceedings conducted in group cases. 3.2. Submission We wish to provide our detailed submission as below against the ground raised by the Revenue in connection with the disallowance of the CWIP: Unexplained investment 3.2.1. We submit that the learned AO has erred

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD vs. ASCEND TELECOM INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes while the corresponding C

ITA 555/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 153A

bogus purchases/ unexplained & unverifiable expenses as applicable to various vendors as noticed during the search and survey proceedings conducted in group cases. 3.2. Submission We wish to provide our detailed submission as below against the ground raised by the Revenue in connection with the disallowance of the CWIP: Unexplained investment 3.2.1. We submit that the learned AO has erred

K. BALA VISHNU RAJU, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 825/HYD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54

purchase of house property and Rs. 1,06,00,000/- towards cost of addition works undertaken. 4.1 To find the veracity of the claim of the assessee, the AO made field enquiries through an Inspector and found that the claim of the assessee is not proper and declined to allow the deduction u/s 54 of the Act. The action

USHA RANI KALIDINDI, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, both the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 824/HYD/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 54

purchase of house property and Rs. 1,06,00,000/- towards cost of addition works undertaken. 4.1 To find the veracity of the claim of the assessee, the AO made field enquiries through an Inspector and found that the claim of the assessee is not proper and declined to allow the deduction u/s 54 of the Act. The action

ISHOO NARANG,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE -2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/HYD/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.450/Hyd/2022 & S.A. No.1/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ishoo Narang Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 2(1) Pan:Aaupn9082B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Th Vijaya Lakshmi, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/09/2024 आदेश/Order Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15/07/2022 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal. 2. The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Al The Mandatory Preconditions Before Reopening Of Assessment U/S 147 Of The Act Were Duly Complied & Met With By The A.O.

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT (DR)
Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 147Section 68

forward his case before the AO but he chose not to do so for reasons best known to him. e) As evident from paras 5 and 5.1 of assessment order it is clear that reasonable opportunity of being heard was provided to appellant but the appellant chose not to avail the said opportunities for reasons best known

ANIRUDH VENKATA RAGI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 352/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

carried out by the assessee is Page 5 of 28 genuine and the learned Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (Appeals) are not correct in holding that the share transaction is not genuine. 11. He further submitted that the learned Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) presumed that the transactions entered into by the assessee also are not genuine

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD vs. D.R.S.LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1971/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeeval Lal Lavidiya, DR

bogus persons. The AO has no basis Page 5 of 15 ITA Nos 1971 and 1719 of 2018 DRS Logistics P Ltd Secunderabad to dictate the quantum of salary paid to the employees vis-à-vis the business of the sister concern. The AO has just made an observation that the employees should not be paid salary as the vehicles

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-17(1), HYDERABAD vs. DRS LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED , SECUNDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1719/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeeval Lal Lavidiya, DR

bogus persons. The AO has no basis Page 5 of 15 ITA Nos 1971 and 1719 of 2018 DRS Logistics P Ltd Secunderabad to dictate the quantum of salary paid to the employees vis-à-vis the business of the sister concern. The AO has just made an observation that the employees should not be paid salary as the vehicles

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(1), HYDERABAD vs. M/S. MUSADDILAL GEMS AND JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

ITA 59/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy
Section 131Section 68

forward losses of Rs.8,60,150/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 14.08.2018. Later, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued from time to time calling for certain information and after considering the information filed, assessment was completed by the AO u/s.143

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(1), HYDERABAD vs. VAISHNAVI BULLION PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

ITA 58/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy
Section 131Section 68

forward losses of Rs.8,60,150/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 14.08.2018. Later, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued from time to time calling for certain information and after considering the information filed, assessment was completed by the AO u/s.143

VAISHNAVI BULLION PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

ITA 561/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy
Section 131Section 68

forward losses of Rs.8,60,150/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 14.08.2018. Later, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued from time to time calling for certain information and after considering the information filed, assessment was completed by the AO u/s.143

MUSADDILAL GEMS JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

ITA 560/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy
Section 131Section 68

forward losses of Rs.8,60,150/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 14.08.2018. Later, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued from time to time calling for certain information and after considering the information filed, assessment was completed by the AO u/s.143

SRI ABHISHEK STEEL AND POWER LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 146/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Sri Abhishek Steel & Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Power Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 1(1), Pan – Aacca9140Q Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey Date Of Hearing: 01/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/04/2021

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao
Section 143(3)Section 35DSection 69C

Loss AI c for the year under consideration. 5~ The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have correctly followed the Excise Duty Rules and also the Accounting Standards with regard to the treatment of Excise duty in the books of account. 6. The Ld. CIT(A),ought not to have considered excise duty on finished goods for the purpose of application

SHANKAR LAL AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 150/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, ARFor Respondent: Ms. P. Sumitha, DR
Section 10(38)

carried out by the assessee is genuine and the learned Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(Appeals) are not correct in holding that the share transaction is not genuine. 11. She further submitted that the learned Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) presumed that the transactions entered into by the assessee also are not genuine, but this presumption