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.

8 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 274clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai658Delhi325Jaipur106Karnataka100Ahmedabad59Bangalore52Kolkata49Chandigarh32Surat32Chennai31Pune25Raipur25Allahabad17Rajkot15Indore15Hyderabad8Jodhpur6Amritsar4Lucknow4Visakhapatnam3Telangana3Agra3Cuttack2Nagpur2Ranchi1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)14Section 143(3)9Addition to Income7Section 546Section 404Section 2744Deduction4Section 133(6)3Section 142(1)3Section 148

MAHALAKSHMI LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-17(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 615/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

Section 133(6) were sent to 4 Mahalakshmi Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. various suppliers. Further, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued on 26.07.2022. After availing various opportunities, finally assessee had responded to the notices with the required details. Assessing Officer after verification of the reply submitted by the assessee found that the assessee had taken

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 17(1), HYDERABAD vs. MAHALAKSHMI LABORATORIES PVT LTD, HYDERABAD

3
Disallowance3
Limitation/Time-bar3

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 606/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Y.V. Bhanu Narayan Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

Section 133(6) were sent to 4 Mahalakshmi Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. various suppliers. Further, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued on 26.07.2022. After availing various opportunities, finally assessee had responded to the notices with the required details. Assessing Officer after verification of the reply submitted by the assessee found that the assessee had taken

BS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 2186/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Deepak P. Ripote
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92B

bogus. 3.15.2. Erred in making proportionate disallowance of interest without appreciating the fact that the assessee has already offered profit and paid tax on the related purchases which is higher than certain percentage of the above expenditure which could have disallowed. 3.15.3. Ought to have appreciated the fact that the VAT/Service tax obligations have been duly complied with by assessee

KIRAN BALA GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 341/HYD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.341/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13) Smt. Kiran Bala Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-10(1), Pan: Ahvpg6893K Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Av Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 04/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 20/02/2026 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 20/12/2024, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 30/08/2022 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri AV Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Aditi Goyal, Sr. AR
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

bogus. Also, the Ld. AR submitted that though it was the claim of the assessee that she acquired the jewellery in June, 1998 but had no material to substantiate her said claim except for the statement of her Mother, therefore, the AO had declined to accept the same primarily for the reason that no Wealth Tax returns in support thereof

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

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

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

NARENDER KUMAR GUPTA HUF ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1084/HYD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sri Siddharth MantriFor Respondent: Sri Subramanyam Tota, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 293BSection 69B

274/- and ‘income from house property’ of Rs.1,26,000 and claimed chapter VIA deduction of Rs.94,120/-. 3. Meanwhile, the Assessing Officer had received information from the Investigation Wing, Kolkata that the assessee has purchased 70,000 shares of the following penny scripts for a total value of Rs.12,77,500/- during the financial year 2010-11 relevant