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.

26 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 56(2)(vii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi567Mumbai401Jaipur175Karnataka100Chandigarh70Ahmedabad67Bangalore62Chennai62Cochin57Kolkata53Indore40Calcutta35Amritsar34Surat29Hyderabad26Guwahati25Rajkot21Jodhpur16Cuttack16Pune14Nagpur13Visakhapatnam12Lucknow7Raipur5Orissa2Panaji2Ranchi2Allahabad2Agra1Patna1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 37(1)37Section 6832Addition to Income26Section 143(3)25Section 234A24Search & Seizure20Section 13112Section 250(6)12Section 132

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

Showing 1–20 of 26 · Page 1 of 2

12
Section 153A12
Cash Deposit4
Demonetization4

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 621/HYD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

vii) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 1,07,898/- towards interest paid for delayed remittance of tax deducted at source. Appeal No.959/H/2014 (AY: 2006-07): (Revenue’s appeal) 9. The Revenue has raised four grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issue are that

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 619/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

vii) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 1,07,898/- towards interest paid for delayed remittance of tax deducted at source. Appeal No.959/H/2014 (AY: 2006-07): (Revenue’s appeal) 9. The Revenue has raised four grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issue are that

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 958/HYD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

vii) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 1,07,898/- towards interest paid for delayed remittance of tax deducted at source. Appeal No.959/H/2014 (AY: 2006-07): (Revenue’s appeal) 9. The Revenue has raised four grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issue are that

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 618/HYD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

vii) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 1,07,898/- towards interest paid for delayed remittance of tax deducted at source. Appeal No.959/H/2014 (AY: 2006-07): (Revenue’s appeal) 9. The Revenue has raised four grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issue are that

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 620/HYD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

vii) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 1,07,898/- towards interest paid for delayed remittance of tax deducted at source. Appeal No.959/H/2014 (AY: 2006-07): (Revenue’s appeal) 9. The Revenue has raised four grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issue are that

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 957/HYD/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

vii) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 1,07,898/- towards interest paid for delayed remittance of tax deducted at source. Appeal No.959/H/2014 (AY: 2006-07): (Revenue’s appeal) 9. The Revenue has raised four grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issue are that

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 616/HYD/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2020AY 2003-04

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

vii) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 1,07,898/- towards interest paid for delayed remittance of tax deducted at source. Appeal No.959/H/2014 (AY: 2006-07): (Revenue’s appeal) 9. The Revenue has raised four grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issue are that

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 617/HYD/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

vii) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 1,07,898/- towards interest paid for delayed remittance of tax deducted at source. Appeal No.959/H/2014 (AY: 2006-07): (Revenue’s appeal) 9. The Revenue has raised four grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issue are that

M/S MIDWEST GRANITES PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 622/HYD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

vii) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 1,07,898/- towards interest paid for delayed remittance of tax deducted at source. Appeal No.959/H/2014 (AY: 2006-07): (Revenue’s appeal) 9. The Revenue has raised four grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issue are that

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 962/HYD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

vii) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 1,07,898/- towards interest paid for delayed remittance of tax deducted at source. Appeal No.959/H/2014 (AY: 2006-07): (Revenue’s appeal) 9. The Revenue has raised four grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issue are that

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 961/HYD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

vii) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 1,07,898/- towards interest paid for delayed remittance of tax deducted at source. Appeal No.959/H/2014 (AY: 2006-07): (Revenue’s appeal) 9. The Revenue has raised four grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issue are that

DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE - 7, HYDERABAD vs. M/S MIDWEST GRANITE PRIVATE LIMITED., HYDERABAD

In the result, all the assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeals are dismissed

ITA 959/HYD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Feb 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Sri Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Smt. Nivedita Biswas, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250(6)Section 37(1)

vii) The Ld. CIT (A) has erred upholding the addition made by the Ld. AO of Rs. 1,07,898/- towards interest paid for delayed remittance of tax deducted at source. Appeal No.959/H/2014 (AY: 2006-07): (Revenue’s appeal) 9. The Revenue has raised four grounds in its appeal however, the cruxes of the issue are that

NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 74/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)

purchased by the appellants after the event. 4.26 In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-Il Vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540. The supreme Court has stated that the taxing authorities are not required to put on blinkers while looking at the documents produced before them. It said that the taxing authorities are entitled to look

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 77/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)

purchased by the appellants after the event. 4.26 In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-Il Vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540. The supreme Court has stated that the taxing authorities are not required to put on blinkers while looking at the documents produced before them. It said that the taxing authorities are entitled to look

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 78/HYD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)

purchased by the appellants after the event. 4.26 In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-Il Vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540. The supreme Court has stated that the taxing authorities are not required to put on blinkers while looking at the documents produced before them. It said that the taxing authorities are entitled to look

NCC LIMITED, ,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 73/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)

purchased by the appellants after the event. 4.26 In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-Il Vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540. The supreme Court has stated that the taxing authorities are not required to put on blinkers while looking at the documents produced before them. It said that the taxing authorities are entitled to look

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 79/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)

purchased by the appellants after the event. 4.26 In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-Il Vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540. The supreme Court has stated that the taxing authorities are not required to put on blinkers while looking at the documents produced before them. It said that the taxing authorities are entitled to look

NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 75/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)

purchased by the appellants after the event. 4.26 In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-Il Vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540. The supreme Court has stated that the taxing authorities are not required to put on blinkers while looking at the documents produced before them. It said that the taxing authorities are entitled to look

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD vs. NCC LIMITED, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

Accordingly, we delete the same. Thus, this ground is partly allowed

ITA 80/HYD/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, CA &For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)
Section 143(1)

purchased by the appellants after the event. 4.26 In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal-Il Vs. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540. The supreme Court has stated that the taxing authorities are not required to put on blinkers while looking at the documents produced before them. It said that the taxing authorities are entitled to look