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.

16 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 250(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai975Delhi340Kolkata213Jaipur176Ahmedabad119Chennai108Raipur81Bangalore78Amritsar73Chandigarh60Cochin58Surat49Rajkot47Guwahati38Indore38Nagpur25Pune23Allahabad22Lucknow19Patna17Hyderabad16Agra12Jodhpur11Dehradun9Varanasi7Ranchi6Visakhapatnam5Jabalpur4Panaji3Cuttack2

Key Topics

Section 14843Section 143(3)16Section 149(1)(b)15Section 148A13Addition to Income13Section 14710Section 15410Section 80G8Section 151

DCIT., CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD vs. ROHINI MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue for the A

ITA 980/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.980/Hyd/2024, 1079/Hyd/2024 & 1080/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dcit Vs. M/S Rohini Minerals Circle-3(1) Private Limited Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaccr0773N] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.K.Gupta, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.Ar

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 148A

bogus purchases. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Krishna Textiles Vs. CIT [2008] 174 Taxman 372 [2009] held that, the onus was on the revenue to prove that the income belongs to the assessee. The AO in this case did not doubt the sales, stock record maintained by the assessee. In the absence of any contrary finding

8
Disallowance5
Reopening of Assessment4
Reassessment3

DCIT., CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD vs. ROHINI MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue for the A

ITA 1080/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.980/Hyd/2024, 1079/Hyd/2024 & 1080/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dcit Vs. M/S Rohini Minerals Circle-3(1) Private Limited Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaccr0773N] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.K.Gupta, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.Ar

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 148A

bogus purchases. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Krishna Textiles Vs. CIT [2008] 174 Taxman 372 [2009] held that, the onus was on the revenue to prove that the income belongs to the assessee. The AO in this case did not doubt the sales, stock record maintained by the assessee. In the absence of any contrary finding

DCIT., CIRCLE 3(1), HYDERABAD vs. ROHINI MINERALS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue for\nthe A

ITA 1079/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15
For Respondent: \nShri S.K. Gupta, AR
Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 148A

4. As the relevant purchases have been debited to\nthe Profit and Loss account and claimed as a deduction\nin computing the profits of the business chargeable to\ntax, the onus was on the appellant to prove the\ngenuneness of the purchases with satisfactory\nevidences. I find that the primary onus that was casted\non the appellant has been discharged

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

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1084/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Sourabh Soparkar, Advocate Represented by Department : Dr. Narendra Kumar NFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 11/11/2025
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 68Section 80Section 801ASection 80GSection 92C

4 is allowed. 6. Ground No.5 was raised against the addition of Rs.1,29,91,000 shown as sales receipts from M/s Lakshin Infradev Pvt. Ltd., under section 68 of the Act. An inquiry report was received from the Income Tax Investigation – Unit New Delhi that M/s Lakshin Infradev Private Limited existed only as a paper entity and was involved

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1083/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 68Section 80Section 801ASection 80GSection 92C

4 of the Rule 18BBB. As a result, ground no\n4 is allowed.\n6. Ground No.5 was raised against the addition of Rs.1,29,91,000\nshown as sales receipts from M/s Lakshin Infradev Pvt. Ltd., under\nsection 68 of the Act. An inquiry report was received from the Income\nTax Investigation – Unit New Delhi that M/s Lakshin Infradev Private

KINETA GLOBAL LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 800/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.800/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Kineta Global Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Hyderabad. Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Pan: Aacck7944A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Sri S. Venkateswarlu, Tax Consultant रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 03/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”) Dated 21/02/2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Company

For Appellant: Sri S. VenkateswarluFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250(6)

4. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) dismissing the appeal is bad in law since the principles of natural justice are not followed in terms of not looking into the records. 5. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is to be held as bad in law as the Ld. CIT(A) failed to pass a speaking order

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)

250/- per share on 31/03/2012 through Festino Vincom Pvt Ltd. for a consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Subsequently. M/s. Baviscon Ltd. issued bonus shares of 79 for each share held on 20/07/2012 thereby taking the total number of shares to 12,800. Subsequently, ten shares of M/s. Unno Industries Ltd. were allotted for each share of M/s. Baviscon

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

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

REEMA AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 353/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Feb 2026AY 2014-15
For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: \nDr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 111ASection 139(1)

4),\nKolkata in ITA.No.2351/Kol./2017, Dated 09.08.2019;\niv. Order of ITAT, Kolkata Bench in the case of M/s.\nNicholson Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., C/o. RSVPC & Company vs.\nvs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Kolkata in ITA.No.1856/Kol./2018,\nDated 08.03.2019;\n4.1.\nThe learned Authorised Representative of the\nAssessee has then referred to the statement of account with\nthe stockbroker and submitted

ACE TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 1085/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

250 Commissions & Other Miscellaneous Business Expenses\n7,800 Commissions & Other Miscellaneous Business Expenses\n1,740 Commissions & Other Miscellaneous Business Expenses\n10,000 Commission & Other Miscellaneous Business Expenses\n2,200 Commissions & Other Miscellaneous Business Expentes\n800,000 Contra Entries & Other Advances\nScrap Realization\n3.500 Commissiens & Other Miscelaneous Business Εκρηκίες\n4,700 Repairs & Maintenance-Factory\n7,575 Repairs & Maintenance-Factory

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,K.V.RANGAREDDY vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the\nA

ITA 1109/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: \nShri M.V. Prasad, CA
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148BSection 149(1)(b)Section 151

4) of the Act as well as the actual\ntransaction as found in the Laptop of Shri Ramesh Kumar\nSanaka. The total sum of the receipt and payment side of the\nExcel Sheets as taken from the Laptop of Shri Ramesh Kumar\nSanaka are\nRs.233,32,59,032/- and Rs.231,50,84,420/-\nrespectively. Therefore, the net difference

ACE TYRES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 1086/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

250 Commissions & Other Miscellaneous Business Expenses\n7,800 Commissions & Other Miscellaneous Business Expenses\n1,740 Commissions & Other Miscellaneous Business Expenses\n10,000 Commission & Other Miscellaneous Business Expenses\n2,200 Commissions & Other Miscellaneous Business Expentes\n800,000 Contra Entries & Other Advances\nScrap Realization\n3.500 Commissiens & Other Miscelaneous Business Εκρηκίες\n4,700 Repairs & Maintenance-Factory\n7,575 Repairs & Maintenance-Factory

MUMTAZ ALI MOHD,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1260/HYD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Sood(Hybrid Hearing) आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1260/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15) Mumtaz Ali Mohd, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-8(1), Pan: Abppm6593E Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Shri K. Vonoth Kannan, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 09/01/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 09/01/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 12/05/2023 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Vonoth Kannan
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

purchases, vouchers etc., but failed to furnish the Sales Tax/VAT/GST return, stock register, cash book and the details of the sundry creditors. The AO held a conviction that as the assessee had failed to produce copies of the Sales Tax return, GST return, therefore, the gross sales/turnover disclosed by him in his return of income was nothing but bogus. Accordingly

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the\nA

ITA 1106/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: \nShri M.V. Prasad, CA
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

4) of the Act as well as the actual\ntransaction as found in the Laptop of Shri Ramesh Kumar\nSanaka. The total sum of the receipt and payment side of the\nExcel Sheets as taken from the Laptop of Shri Ramesh Kumar\nSanaka are Rs.233,32,59,032/- and Rs.231,50,84,420/-\nrespectively. Therefore, the net difference

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for the\nA

ITA 1108/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: \nShri M.V. Prasad, CA
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148BSection 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 151

4) of the Act as well as the actual\ntransaction as found in the Laptop of Shri Ramesh Kumar\nSanaka. The total sum of the receipt and payment side of the\nExcel Sheets as taken from the Laptop of Shri Ramesh Kumar\nSanaka are\nRs.233,32,59,032/- and Rs.231,50,84,420/-\nrespectively. Therefore, the net difference