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.

2 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 271Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi21Jaipur6Mumbai5Chennai5Kolkata5Indore3Cuttack2Hyderabad2Pune1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 1484Section 143(2)2Section 1442

ITO, WARD-2, PRODDATUR, PRODDATUR vs. SADHANAKARI KHAJA RAMTHULLA, KADAPA, KADAPA

In the result, both cross appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1387/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11 Ito,Ward-2 Vs. Sadhanakari Khaja Vasanthapet Rahmathulla Proddatur-516 360 Chintapalli(Village) Kalasapadu(Mandal) Kadapa(District) Andhra Pradesh

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas,CAFor Respondent: Shri P.V.Subba Raju, Sr.AR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148

sections 26988 and 269T of the IT Act. Thus, the assessing officer was clearly in his mind that all six persons violated the Provisions of the Act by accepting cash deposits through the assessee and processing the same through his account. In such circumstances it is not justifiable to treat all those deposits as that of the assessee u/s.68

S. KHAJA RAMTHULLA, KADAPA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2, PRODDATUR, PRODDATUR

In the result, both cross appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 674/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11 Ito,Ward-2 Vs. Sadhanakari Khaja Vasanthapet Rahmathulla Proddatur-516 360 Chintapalli(Village) Kalasapadu(Mandal) Kadapa(District) Andhra Pradesh

For Appellant: Shri K.C.Devdas,CAFor Respondent: Shri P.V.Subba Raju, Sr.AR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148

sections 26988 and 269T of the IT Act. Thus, the assessing officer was clearly in his mind that all six persons violated the Provisions of the Act by accepting cash deposits through the assessee and processing the same through his account. In such circumstances it is not justifiable to treat all those deposits as that of the assessee u/s.68