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.

94 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 57clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,262Delhi832Jaipur278Kolkata258Chennai169Bangalore164Ahmedabad156Chandigarh113Karnataka104Hyderabad94Pune85Surat76Indore75Cochin60Raipur53Nagpur44Rajkot36Calcutta34Allahabad25Lucknow24Agra23Jodhpur18Amritsar18Visakhapatnam18Patna8Guwahati8Cuttack8Telangana7Jabalpur6Dehradun5Panaji3SC3Ranchi1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Gauhati1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 153A74Addition to Income73Section 153B72Section 143(3)71Section 13260Search & Seizure60Section 10A48Section 6846Section 148

SUSHMASRI BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 58/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Hon'Bleआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.57 & 58/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) Smt. Sushmasri Boppana Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Pan:Akvpb6106D Central Circle 3(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B. Balakrishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/10/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 153A

section 292C and receipt found in the premise of the appellant is contrary to law because what was found in the possession of the assessee is a document belongs or pertains to Page 15 of 20 ITA Nos 57 and 58 of 2023 Sushmasri Boppana Hyderabad the vendor but not to the assessee. Therefore, in our considered view, the Assessing

Showing 1–20 of 94 · Page 1 of 5

41
Section 37(1)37
Deduction24
Penalty18

SUSHMASRI BOPPANA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 57/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble Vice- & Shri Manjunatha, G. Accountant Hon'Bleआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.57 & 58/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17) Smt. Sushmasri Boppana Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Hyderabad Income Tax, Pan:Akvpb6106D Central Circle 3(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri B. Balakrishna, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 25/10/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri B. Balakrishna, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 153A

section 292C and receipt found in the premise of the appellant is contrary to law because what was found in the possession of the assessee is a document belongs or pertains to Page 15 of 20 ITA Nos 57 and 58 of 2023 Sushmasri Boppana Hyderabad the vendor but not to the assessee. Therefore, in our considered view, the Assessing

JYOTI AGARWAL, HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-14(2), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 703/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14 Jyoti Agarwal, Hyderabad. Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward – 14(2), Hyderabad Pan – Aakpa 6898G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kumar MalpaniFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 57

57 of the Act. Aggrieved with the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). 3. Before the CIT(A), it was submitted that in the preceding previous year the premises was used for money lending and in the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration, it Jyoti Agarwal, Hyd. was used for giving

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. GENESIS CROP SCIENCES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED , HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 240/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 May 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonya.Y. 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Genesis Crop Sciences Ward-2(2), (India) Pvt Limited, Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan: Aaccg 7207 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri K.A. Sai Prasad Revenue By: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey Date Of Hearing: 17/02/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 03/05/2021 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

For Appellant: Sri K.A. Sai PrasadFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey
Section 143(3)Section 68

bogus sundry creditors and amount standing against them could not be added to income of assessee Held, yes iii. Income-tax Officer v. Smt. Umadevi Thimmaiah* (49 taxmann.com 496 (Bangalore Trib.) Section 68 or the income-tax Act, 1961 Cash credit trade credits) Asst. year 2008-09 - All credits was trade credits and none of said credits was cash credit

SHAILAJA KALVAKUNTLA,,HYDERABAD vs. ITO,WARD- 3(1),, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA no

ITA 734/HYD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Sunku Srinivas
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 68Section 69

57,680 (ii) Unexplained investment made in purchase of land at Shaikpet assessed to tax u/s 69 Rs.97,00,000 Out of the above additions, the dispute is with regard to the unexplained investment made in purchase of land at Shaikpet, which is assessed u/s 69 of the Act. 4.1 During the assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee

SHAILAJA KALVAKUNTLA, HYD,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(1), HYD, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal in ITA no

ITA 1364/HYD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri Sunku Srinivas
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 68Section 69

57,680 (ii) Unexplained investment made in purchase of land at Shaikpet assessed to tax u/s 69 Rs.97,00,000 Out of the above additions, the dispute is with regard to the unexplained investment made in purchase of land at Shaikpet, which is assessed u/s 69 of the Act. 4.1 During the assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee

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)

bogus receipts and paying tax thereon alone cannot establish the genuineness of the transaction. 21. Having observed so, the Ld. CIT (A) further opined that activities such as cutting, squaring and dressing of granites were certainly carried out, may be, by outside parties without which the granite blocks could not have been exported and therefore, certain expenses were incurred

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)

bogus receipts and paying tax thereon alone cannot establish the genuineness of the transaction. 21. Having observed so, the Ld. CIT (A) further opined that activities such as cutting, squaring and dressing of granites were certainly carried out, may be, by outside parties without which the granite blocks could not have been exported and therefore, certain expenses were incurred

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)

bogus receipts and paying tax thereon alone cannot establish the genuineness of the transaction. 21. Having observed so, the Ld. CIT (A) further opined that activities such as cutting, squaring and dressing of granites were certainly carried out, may be, by outside parties without which the granite blocks could not have been exported and therefore, certain expenses were incurred

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)

bogus receipts and paying tax thereon alone cannot establish the genuineness of the transaction. 21. Having observed so, the Ld. CIT (A) further opined that activities such as cutting, squaring and dressing of granites were certainly carried out, may be, by outside parties without which the granite blocks could not have been exported and therefore, certain expenses were incurred

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)

bogus receipts and paying tax thereon alone cannot establish the genuineness of the transaction. 21. Having observed so, the Ld. CIT (A) further opined that activities such as cutting, squaring and dressing of granites were certainly carried out, may be, by outside parties without which the granite blocks could not have been exported and therefore, certain expenses were incurred

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)

bogus receipts and paying tax thereon alone cannot establish the genuineness of the transaction. 21. Having observed so, the Ld. CIT (A) further opined that activities such as cutting, squaring and dressing of granites were certainly carried out, may be, by outside parties without which the granite blocks could not have been exported and therefore, certain expenses were incurred

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)

bogus receipts and paying tax thereon alone cannot establish the genuineness of the transaction. 21. Having observed so, the Ld. CIT (A) further opined that activities such as cutting, squaring and dressing of granites were certainly carried out, may be, by outside parties without which the granite blocks could not have been exported and therefore, certain expenses were incurred

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)

bogus receipts and paying tax thereon alone cannot establish the genuineness of the transaction. 21. Having observed so, the Ld. CIT (A) further opined that activities such as cutting, squaring and dressing of granites were certainly carried out, may be, by outside parties without which the granite blocks could not have been exported and therefore, certain expenses were incurred

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)

bogus receipts and paying tax thereon alone cannot establish the genuineness of the transaction. 21. Having observed so, the Ld. CIT (A) further opined that activities such as cutting, squaring and dressing of granites were certainly carried out, may be, by outside parties without which the granite blocks could not have been exported and therefore, certain expenses were incurred

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)

bogus receipts and paying tax thereon alone cannot establish the genuineness of the transaction. 21. Having observed so, the Ld. CIT (A) further opined that activities such as cutting, squaring and dressing of granites were certainly carried out, may be, by outside parties without which the granite blocks could not have been exported and therefore, certain expenses were incurred

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)

bogus receipts and paying tax thereon alone cannot establish the genuineness of the transaction. 21. Having observed so, the Ld. CIT (A) further opined that activities such as cutting, squaring and dressing of granites were certainly carried out, may be, by outside parties without which the granite blocks could not have been exported and therefore, certain expenses were incurred

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)

bogus receipts and paying tax thereon alone cannot establish the genuineness of the transaction. 21. Having observed so, the Ld. CIT (A) further opined that activities such as cutting, squaring and dressing of granites were certainly carried out, may be, by outside parties without which the granite blocks could not have been exported and therefore, certain expenses were incurred

ASR ENGINERING & PROJECTS LIMITED (FORMERLY SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED), ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 1133/HYD/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

purchase' and supply of stone and stone dust for works at Paradip. The circumstances of the transactions - including supply of material at Paradip, were identical. He claimed to have met one Mr. Sahoo and Mr. Mohanti at Paradip who agreed to provide the required quantities of stone and stone-dust. Shri Chandrakanth Reddy states that he does not know their

ASR ENGINERING & PROJECTS LIMITED (FORMERLY SAI SUDHIR INFRASTRUCTURES LIMITED), ,HYDERABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, a) ITA Nos

ITA 1132/HYD/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmansrl Appeal Number Pan A.Y. Appellant Respondent 1

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

purchase' and supply of stone and stone dust for works at Paradip. The circumstances of the transactions - including supply of material at Paradip, were identical. He claimed to have met one Mr. Sahoo and Mr. Mohanti at Paradip who agreed to provide the required quantities of stone and stone-dust. Shri Chandrakanth Reddy states that he does not know their