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.

47 results for “bogus purchases”+ House Propertyclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai747Delhi502Jaipur195Karnataka108Kolkata106Bangalore106Chennai104Chandigarh88Ahmedabad80Cochin60Indore49Hyderabad47Pune41Calcutta34Nagpur23Guwahati22Surat20Raipur18Rajkot18Lucknow17Agra16Cuttack9Visakhapatnam8Patna6Telangana6Jodhpur3Amritsar2Ranchi2SC1Dehradun1Gauhati1Varanasi1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 153A68Section 143(3)40Section 13239Addition to Income26Section 10(38)25Search & Seizure25Section 6820House Property18Penalty18Section 69B

RACHIT V SHAH,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-7(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 420/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Adithya for Shri K.P.R.R.Murthy, Sr.AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 54F

purchased a new residential property for a consideration of Rs.3,39,66,000/-. The assessee used the sale proceeds of Rs.2,28,38,880/- of the previously sold property partly for the payment towards the acquisition of the new property. Thus, the assessee claimed exemption u/s.54F of the entire amount of capital gains arising from the sale proceeds of Rs.2

Showing 1–20 of 47 · Page 1 of 3

14
Section 139(1)14
Section 6913

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(4), HYDERABAD vs. AARTHIK GREENTECH SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 32/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.32/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. Aarthik Greentech Income Tax Solutions Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aalca6887D] आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.33/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2014-15) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. Aarthik Infra Projects Income Tax Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aahca0719N] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Ms.M.Narmada, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 21/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Order Dated 11.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-11, Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2014-15. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Aarthik Greentech Solutions Pvt. Ltd. & Aarthik Infra Projects Pvt.Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Ms.M.Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153C

bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the Assessing Officer, then the department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments, in accordance with law, but this amount of share application money cannot be regarded as undisclosed income u/s 68 of the Act. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

JYOTI AGARWAL, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-14(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 703/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14 Jyoti Agarwal, Hyderabad. Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward – 14(2), Hyderabad Pan – Aakpa 6898G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kumar MalpaniFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 57

purchased the house for the purpose of doing some activity which could generate income for herself and since this was the beginning for the assessee to explore different kind of activity to generate income, the earnings were not very handsome. Otherwise the assessee would have given the house for rent and derived income out of the same. Assessee relied

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

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

RONAK GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

ITA 120/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Narahari BiswalFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy
Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 68Section 69B

bogus story of convenience as already observed that there are various levies on scrap sales and also there has to be reason for generation of scrap, whereas the appellants are just reiterating submissions without giving any justification or evidences, in view of the same, the additions made by the Assessing Officer are confirmed. The Assessing Officer has rightly added

KANISHKA GUPTA,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

ITA 119/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Narahari BiswalFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy
Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 68Section 69B

bogus story of convenience as already observed that there are various levies on scrap sales and also there has to be reason for generation of scrap, whereas the appellants are just reiterating submissions without giving any justification or evidences, in view of the same, the additions made by the Assessing Officer are confirmed. The Assessing Officer has rightly added

SUPREME AGRO,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

ITA 121/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Narahari BiswalFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy
Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 68Section 69B

bogus story of convenience as already observed that there are various levies on scrap sales and also there has to be reason for generation of scrap, whereas the appellants are just reiterating submissions without giving any justification or evidences, in view of the same, the additions made by the Assessing Officer are confirmed. The Assessing Officer has rightly added

SHAILAJA KUNCHALA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 697/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shailaja Kunchala, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 15(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Cfkpk9703B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Kumar Pranav – Cit-Dr (Appeared Through Virtual Hearing) Date Of Hearing: 17.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.09.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav – CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 282Section 37(1)

bogus purchases and Rs.5,04,000/- being income under the head ‘Income from House Property’. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD vs. SV MULTI LOGITECH PRIVATE LIMITED , SECUNDERBAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 81/HYD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.81/Hyd/2021 & 82/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. S.V.Multi Logitech Income Tax Private Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aascs7131D] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 18/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Order Dated 04.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-11, Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2015-16 & 2016-17. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Order. S.V.Multi Logitech Private Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the Assessing Officer, then the department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments, in accordance with law, but this amount of share application money cannot be regarded as undisclosed income u/s 68 of the Act. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(4), HYDERABAD vs. SV MULTI LOGITECH PRIVATE LIMITED , SECUNDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 82/HYD/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.81/Hyd/2021 & 82/Hyd/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2016-17) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. S.V.Multi Logitech Income Tax Private Ltd. Central Circle-3(4) Secunderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aascs7131D] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 25/11/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 18/02/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Order Dated 04.09.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.Cit(A)”]-11, Hyderabad Pertaining To A.Y.2015-16 & 2016-17. Since, Facts Are Identical & Issues Are Common, For The Sake Of Convenience, The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Being Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off, By This Common Order. S.V.Multi Logitech Private Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao,ARFor Respondent: Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

bogus shareholders, whose names are given to the Assessing Officer, then the department is free to proceed to reopen their individual assessments, in accordance with law, but this amount of share application money cannot be regarded as undisclosed income u/s 68 of the Act. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

LATHA REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 43/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri DK. ChhablaniFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

house property and income from other sources besides agricultural income of Rs.4,22,260/- after claiming exemption u/s 10(38) to the tune of Rs.5,95,17,606/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was conducted in the case of M/s. AMR India Limited and Others

GIRISH REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 42/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri DK. ChhablaniFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

house property and income from other sources besides agricultural income of Rs.4,22,260/- after claiming exemption u/s 10(38) to the tune of Rs.5,95,17,606/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was conducted in the case of M/s. AMR India Limited and Others

RADHIKA REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 41/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri DK. ChhablaniFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

house property and income from other sources besides agricultural income of Rs.4,22,260/- after claiming exemption u/s 10(38) to the tune of Rs.5,95,17,606/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was conducted in the case of M/s. AMR India Limited and Others

MAHESH REDDY ALTHURI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 40/HYD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri DK. ChhablaniFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

house property and income from other sources besides agricultural income of Rs.4,22,260/- after claiming exemption u/s 10(38) to the tune of Rs.5,95,17,606/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was conducted in the case of M/s. AMR India Limited and Others

PRODDATURI SANJAY KUMAR,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-10(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 157/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Proddaturi Sanjay Kumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 10(4), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Bfbps1905P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri B. Prabhakar, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Sbr Kumar Laghimsetti, Sr.D.R. Date Of Hearing: 07/04/2025 21/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri B. Prabhakar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri SBR Kumar Laghimsetti
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 44ASection 69

house property and other sources. The assessee has declared income from business under the presumptive Taxation Scheme u/s 44AD of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) showing as gross turnover of Rs.9 lakhs and offered the income accordingly. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and during 3 the assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO noticed that

ITO, WARD-2, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR vs. G.DHANUNJAYA NAIDU, B'LORE, BANGALORE

In the result, all the three Revenue appeals are dismissed

ITA 972/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.G.V. Prasad, DR
Section 147Section 40

property. AO has pursued the investigation diligently and came to know that assessee has purchased a site at Green Glen Layout, Bellandhur, Bangalore, constructed 12 flats and one pent- house, borrowed funds from State Financial Corporation and repaid the loans and also had different bank accounts in which sale proceeds have been deposited and expenditures have been incurred. After enquiry

G DHANANJAYA NAIDU, BANGALORE,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR

In the result, all the three Revenue appeals are dismissed

ITA 676/HYD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.G.V. Prasad, DR
Section 147Section 40

property. AO has pursued the investigation diligently and came to know that assessee has purchased a site at Green Glen Layout, Bellandhur, Bangalore, constructed 12 flats and one pent- house, borrowed funds from State Financial Corporation and repaid the loans and also had different bank accounts in which sale proceeds have been deposited and expenditures have been incurred. After enquiry

G DHANANJAYA NAIDU, BANGALORE,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR

In the result, all the three Revenue appeals are dismissed

ITA 677/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.G.V. Prasad, DR
Section 147Section 40

property. AO has pursued the investigation diligently and came to know that assessee has purchased a site at Green Glen Layout, Bellandhur, Bangalore, constructed 12 flats and one pent- house, borrowed funds from State Financial Corporation and repaid the loans and also had different bank accounts in which sale proceeds have been deposited and expenditures have been incurred. After enquiry

G DHANANJAYA NAIDU, BANGALORE,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR

In the result, all the three Revenue appeals are dismissed

ITA 678/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri B. Ramakotaiah

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.G.V. Prasad, DR
Section 147Section 40

property. AO has pursued the investigation diligently and came to know that assessee has purchased a site at Green Glen Layout, Bellandhur, Bangalore, constructed 12 flats and one pent- house, borrowed funds from State Financial Corporation and repaid the loans and also had different bank accounts in which sale proceeds have been deposited and expenditures have been incurred. After enquiry