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 340clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai320Delhi278Karnataka99Bangalore54Kolkata49Jaipur46Ahmedabad40Chandigarh33Chennai30Pune25Surat19Allahabad17Indore13Nagpur9Visakhapatnam8Hyderabad8Rajkot7Lucknow7Cuttack4Panaji2Guwahati2Telangana2Raipur2SC2Cochin2Jodhpur1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Agra1Patna1

Key Topics

Section 143(3)8Section 10(38)5Section 40A(3)5Disallowance5Section 1474Section 69C4Section 194H4Addition to Income4TDS4

THOTA RAMAIAH L/R T VASUNDHARA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1), , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1626/HYD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Somnath GhoshFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Adithya, Sr.A.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 80C

340 (AP), Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh Vs. ITO reported in 191 ITR 667 etc., 6.3 Ld. AR further submitted that provision of section 40A(3) as well as Rule 6DD are not intended to restrict business activities and that the terms of section 40A(3) of the Act are not absolute. Ld. AR further submitted that assessee did not fall

Section 1483
Section 80C2
House Property2

SHAILAJA KUNCHALA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-15(1), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 697/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Sept 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accounant Member Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shailaja Kunchala, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 15(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Cfkpk9703B. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Shri Kumar Pranav – Cit-Dr (Appeared Through Virtual Hearing) Date Of Hearing: 17.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.09.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav – CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 282Section 37(1)

section 282, particularly w.r.t. the businesses carried by Assessees in unorganised sector and thus a notice by registered post or a service through inspector ought to have been made before passing an Ex-parte order. 4. The Ld. Commissioner(Appeals)-NFAC erred in confirming the arbitrary addition of Rs. 16,41 ,58,541/- made by the Assessing Officer referable

SANJAY GUPTA ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 1787/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Sri S.S. Godaraa.Y. 2012-13 Sanjay Gupta, Vs. Dcit, Hyderabad. Circle-3(1), Pan: Acgpg 3696 N Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sri A.V. Raghuram Revenue By Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 30/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 14/12/2021 Order

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 57

Section 149 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence the appellant's contention on this ground does not merit and hence dismissed. In the context, on the issue of change of opinion which the appellant had contended, it is pertinent to refer to the facts and circumstances as brought out by the Assessing Officer for the reopening of the assessment

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 1430/HYD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.A. SaiprasadFor Respondent: Shri B. Suresh Babu
Section 194H

340 17,686 Parikh Neema Bhavesh AGKPP0932G 50,000 0 5.3 CIT(A) observed that the assessee could not furnish any documentary evidence to substantiate that services had actually been rendered by these persons. There are no bills from the payees and no reference to the payees in the purchase orders from the customers. Even the payees could not produce

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-10(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 1431/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.A. SaiprasadFor Respondent: Shri B. Suresh Babu
Section 194H

340 17,686 Parikh Neema Bhavesh AGKPP0932G 50,000 0 5.3 CIT(A) observed that the assessee could not furnish any documentary evidence to substantiate that services had actually been rendered by these persons. There are no bills from the payees and no reference to the payees in the purchase orders from the customers. Even the payees could not produce

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-14(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 1433/HYD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.A. SaiprasadFor Respondent: Shri B. Suresh Babu
Section 194H

340 17,686 Parikh Neema Bhavesh AGKPP0932G 50,000 0 5.3 CIT(A) observed that the assessee could not furnish any documentary evidence to substantiate that services had actually been rendered by these persons. There are no bills from the payees and no reference to the payees in the purchase orders from the customers. Even the payees could not produce

SUNIL VISHRAM CHAWDA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. CIT (OSD), RANGE-10, HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals under consideration are allowed

ITA 1432/HYD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Shri K.A. SaiprasadFor Respondent: Shri B. Suresh Babu
Section 194H

340 17,686 Parikh Neema Bhavesh AGKPP0932G 50,000 0 5.3 CIT(A) observed that the assessee could not furnish any documentary evidence to substantiate that services had actually been rendered by these persons. There are no bills from the payees and no reference to the payees in the purchase orders from the customers. Even the payees could not produce

SRI ABHISHEK STEEL AND POWER LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 146/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12 Sri Abhishek Steel & Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Power Ltd., Hyderabad. Income-Tax, Circle – 1(1), Pan – Aacca9140Q Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao Revenue By Shri Sunil Kumar Pandey Date Of Hearing: 01/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/04/2021

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohana Rao
Section 143(3)Section 35DSection 69C

purchases. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that there is no unexplained expenditure incurred by the assessee during the year of account and that the addition of Rs.87,70,509 is not warranted. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 22,07,373/- made u/s 69C of the Act in respect