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.

5 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 154clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai571Delhi391Jaipur116Karnataka99Kolkata87Bangalore69Ahmedabad68Cochin57Chandigarh49Chennai47Calcutta35Pune31Surat29Raipur27Lucknow25Indore25Guwahati17Nagpur15Jodhpur9Visakhapatnam6Patna6Hyderabad5Rajkot5Telangana4Cuttack4Amritsar4Agra3Ranchi2Allahabad2Jabalpur1Gauhati1Varanasi1SC1

Key Topics

Section 14811Section 15410Section 1328Section 143(3)5Section 405Addition to Income5Section 1473Section 132(4)2Section 40A(3)2Disallowance

SEEMA JAIN,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1112/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1112/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Seema Jain Vs. Ito, Ward-8(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Afnpj4732N] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.Venkateswarlu, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri R.Kumaran, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 30/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.08.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Pertaining To A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Carrying On The Business Of Trading In Jewellery & Also Job Work For Her Customers, Filed Her Return Of Income For The A.Y.2017-18 On 12.09.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.13,09,720/- The Assessment Has Been Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri S.Venkateswarlu, ARFor Respondent: : Shri R.Kumaran, DR
Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 40Section 69A
2
Search & Seizure2

purchase turnover would suitably and proportionately get scaled down. Therefore, there is no error in the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) and their order should be upheld. 4 6. We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that

DEMI REALTORS,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes on the above terms

ITA 156/HYD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

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

For Respondent: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakhsmi, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 40a

bogus. The findings of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue are incorrect. 11. The ld.CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.8,41,87,239/- made by the Assessing Officer by invoking provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 12. The Id. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.18,47,25,000 made

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1566/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha G.आ. अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1566 & 1571/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) M/S. Exel Rubber Private Ltd Vs. Hyderabad Dy.Cit Central Circle 1 (2) Hyderabad Pan:Aaace4495J (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राजस्व द्वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 18/02/2026 Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. आदेश/Order These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad, Both Dated 14/07/2025 For The A.Ys 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Respectively. Since Common Issues Are Involved In These Two Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148

bogus. 5. Any other legal and factual ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed the return of income for the A.Y 2020-21 on 12.02.2021, admitting total Income of Rs.103,29,39,000/-. The case was selected for scrutiny

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1571/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha G.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148

bogus. 5. Any other legal and factual ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed the return of income for the A.Y 2020-21 on 12.02.2021, admitting total Income of Rs.103,29,39,000/-. The case was selected for scrutiny

SPR INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 638/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Apr 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu(Through Virtual Hearing)

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas (D.R)
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

purchase of property through assessee company for acquiring land bank in Hyderabad and development of the same. For passing on amounts to assessee, assessee might have raised bogus bills but at present, the parties are in dispute. The said company New Cyberabad City Projects P. Ltd., admittedly treated the amount paid to assessee as advance and assessee even though treated