BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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

Cochin57Mumbai44Delhi35Chennai23Hyderabad14Visakhapatnam9Chandigarh8Bangalore7Indore5Cuttack1

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 1566/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

bogus.\n5. Any other legal and factual ground or grounds that may be\nurged at the time of hearing of the appeal.”\n3.\nThe brief facts of the case are that the assessee\ncompany filed the return of income for the A.Y 2020-21 on\n12.02.2021, admitting total Income of Rs.103,29,39,000/-. The\ncase was selected for scrutiny

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

ITA 1571/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Feb 2026
2
Search & Seizure2
AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148

bogus.\n5. Any other legal and factual ground or grounds that may be\nurged at the time of hearing of the appeal.”\n\n3.\nThe brief facts of the case are that the assessee\ncompany filed the return of income for the A.Y 2020-21 on\n12.02.2021, admitting total Income of Rs.103,29,39,000/-. The\ncase was selected

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 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 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

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 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 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

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 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 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 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 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

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