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.

14 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 65Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi66Cochin57Mumbai39Hyderabad14Chennai12Visakhapatnam9Chandigarh8Bangalore8Indore5Cuttack2

Key Topics

Section 153B72Section 292C24Addition to Income14Section 153A12Section 2(31)12Limitation/Time-bar12Section 1328Section 1486Section 143(3)

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 1571/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha G.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148

bogus. 5. Any other legal and factual ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed the return of income for the A.Y 2020-21 on 12.02.2021, admitting total Income of Rs.103,29,39,000/-. The case was selected for scrutiny

EXEL RUBBER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

2
Section 132(4)2
Search & Seizure2
ITA 1566/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice- & Shri Manjunatha G.आ. अपी.सं / Ita Nos.1566 & 1571/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2020-21 & 2021-22) M/S. Exel Rubber Private Ltd Vs. Hyderabad Dy.Cit Central Circle 1 (2) Hyderabad Pan:Aaace4495J (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धारिती द्वारा / Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राजस्व द्वारा/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Pronouncement: 18/02/2026 Per Manjunatha, G. A.M. आदेश/Order These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad, Both Dated 14/07/2025 For The A.Ys 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23 Respectively. Since Common Issues Are Involved In These Two Appeals, For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148

bogus. 5. Any other legal and factual ground or grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed the return of income for the A.Y 2020-21 on 12.02.2021, admitting total Income of Rs.103,29,39,000/-. The case was selected for scrutiny

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1093/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2018-19
Section 153ASection 153BSection 2(31)Section 292C

65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was incomplete and, therefore, defective in law; consequently, the electronic records referred to in Grounds 3 and 4 above cannot be treated as admissible evidence and are liable to be excluded from consideration. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the applicability of Section 115BВE for the additions appearing in Ground

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1090/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2015-16
Section 153ASection 153BSection 2(31)Section 292C

65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was incomplete and, therefore, defective in law; consequently, the electronic records referred to in Grounds 3 and 4 above cannot be treated as admissible evidence and are liable to be excluded from consideration. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the applicability of Section 115BВE for the additions appearing in Ground

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1089/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2014-15
Section 153ASection 153BSection 2(31)Section 292C

65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was incomplete and, therefore, defective in law; consequently, the electronic records referred to in Grounds 3 and 4 above cannot be treated as admissible evidence and are liable to be excluded from consideration. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the applicability of Section 115BВE for the additions appearing in Ground

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1092/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2017-18
Section 153ASection 153BSection 2(31)Section 292C

65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was incomplete and, therefore, defective in law; consequently, the electronic records referred to in Grounds 3 and 4 above cannot be treated as admissible evidence and are liable to be excluded from consideration. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the applicability of Section 115BВE for the additions appearing in Ground

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1094/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2019-20
Section 153ASection 153BSection 2(31)Section 292C

65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was incomplete and, therefore, defective in law; consequently, the electronic records referred to in Grounds 3 and 4 above cannot be treated as admissible evidence and are liable to be excluded from consideration. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the applicability of Section 115BВE for the additions appearing in Ground

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1126/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2017-18
Section 153ASection 153BSection 2(31)Section 292C

65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was incomplete and, therefore, defective in law; consequently, the electronic records referred to in Grounds 3 and 4 above cannot be treated as admissible evidence and are liable to be excluded from consideration. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the applicability of Section 115BВE for the additions appearing in Ground

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1125/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2016-17
Section 153ASection 153BSection 2(31)Section 292C

65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was incomplete and, therefore, defective in law; consequently, the electronic records referred to in Grounds 3 and 4 above cannot be treated as admissible evidence and are liable to be excluded from consideration. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the applicability of Section 115BВE for the additions appearing in Ground

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1127/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2018-19
Section 153ASection 153BSection 2(31)Section 292C

65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was incomplete and, therefore, defective in law; consequently, the electronic records referred to in Grounds 3 and 4 above cannot be treated as admissible evidence and are liable to be excluded from consideration. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the applicability of Section 115BВE for the additions appearing in Ground

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1129/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2020-21
Section 153ASection 153BSection 2(31)Section 292C

65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was incomplete and, therefore, defective in law; consequently, the electronic records referred to in Grounds 3 and 4 above cannot be treated as admissible evidence and are liable to be excluded from consideration. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the applicability of Section 115BВE for the additions appearing in Ground

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1095/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2020-21
Section 153ASection 153BSection 2(31)Section 292C

65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was incomplete and, therefore, defective in law; consequently, the electronic records referred to in Grounds 3 and 4 above cannot be treated as admissible evidence and are liable to be excluded from consideration. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the applicability of Section 115BВE for the additions appearing in Ground

ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD vs. PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1128/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2019-20
Section 153ASection 153BSection 2(31)Section 292C

65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was incomplete and, therefore, defective in law; consequently, the electronic records referred to in Grounds 3 and 4 above cannot be treated as admissible evidence and are liable to be excluded from consideration. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the applicability of Section 115BВE for the additions appearing in Ground

PRATHIMA INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1091/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2016-17
Section 153ASection 153BSection 2(31)Section 292C

65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was incomplete and, therefore, defective in law; consequently, the electronic records referred to in Grounds 3 and 4 above cannot be treated as admissible evidence and are liable to be excluded from consideration. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the applicability of Section 115BВE for the additions appearing in Ground