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.

4 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 2(24)(x)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai230Delhi147Jaipur96Chandigarh54Kolkata44Chennai39Ahmedabad36Rajkot33Guwahati28Surat25Bangalore17Indore13Jodhpur13Lucknow13Visakhapatnam11Nagpur11Raipur9Allahabad7Pune6Hyderabad4Agra3Jabalpur1Amritsar1

Key Topics

Section 1475Section 404Addition to Income4Section 683Section 69A3Section 10(38)2Section 40A(3)2Reopening of Assessment2Disallowance

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

section is very clear and the appellant has incurred the expenditure and the appellant has made the payment to the various parties and persons. The appellant has, to circumvent, not accounted for the same and has also not brought out any evidence from M/s.DLF that they have accounted for such transactions in their books as cash payments. The MoU cannot

2

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

x) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs. M/s Dilip Kumar & company and others (Civil Appeal No.3327/2007)" has categorically ruled that exemption notification should be interpreted strictly; the burden of proving applicability would be on the assessee to show that his case comes within the parameters of the exemption clause or exemption

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

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 1077/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 147

X qty to B only.\n(iv)\nTime gap between purchase and sale transaction lasts few seconds and not\nmore than an hour.\n(V)\nInsignificant change in the price of the underlying scrip as compared to the\nchange in buy rates and sell rates.\n(vi)\nTrading repeatedly in deep in-the-money options and deep

KASIREDDY SASIKALAMMA,NELLORE vs. ITO., WARD -1, GUDUR

ITA 225/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Helen Ruby Jesindha
Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69ASection 69BSection 69C

purchase is that of an agriculturist land and De information was voluntarily made available by the Appellant himself. (x) The sources for the same are not of the cash savings from agricultural activities as accommodated by the Appellant. Unexplained Cash Credit u/s 68-Cash in Hand-Rs. 32,605/- 3 Kasireddy Sasikalamma (x) The Learned AO/CIT(A) has incorrect added