Search: bogus purchases | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

151 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 68clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,532 Delhi1,707 Kolkata567 Jaipur460 Ahmedabad340 Chennai286 Bangalore241 Chandigarh209 Surat178 Pune177 Indore153 Hyderabad151 Karnataka109 Raipur96 Nagpur78 Rajkot77 Lucknow65 Cochin58 Guwahati54 Calcutta46 Visakhapatnam45 Amritsar42 Cuttack36 Agra33 Allahabad29 Jodhpur20 Patna18 Ranchi16 Dehradun10 Jabalpur9 Telangana9 SC3 Gauhati2 Panaji2 Varanasi2 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 6890 Section 10(38)85 Section 143(3)82 Addition to Income78 Section 153A72 Section 14857 Section 13250 Section 153B48 Search & Seizure45

RAM GOPAL,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 514/HYD/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: C.A MrudulathaFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy, DR

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

purchases amounting to Rs. 2,92,93,288/- and taxing only 25% of these bogus claim goes against the principles of Sections 68

RAM GOPAL,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD

Showing 1–20 of 151 · Page 1 of 8

...

Section 37(1)39

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 572/HYD/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: C.A MrudulathaFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy, DR

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

purchases amounting to Rs. 2,92,93,288/- and taxing only 25% of these bogus claim goes against the principles of Sections 68

RAM GOPAL,HYDERABAD vs. ITO WARD-8(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 571/HYD/2022[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Mar 2023AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: C.A MrudulathaFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy, DR

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

purchases amounting to Rs. 2,92,93,288/- and taxing only 25% of these bogus claim goes against the principles of Sections 68

SUPREME AGRO,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3 (1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

ITA 121/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Narahari BiswalFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 68Section 69B

68 of the Act. Even during the course of appeal proceedings, the appellant did not furnish and- explanation with supporting documentary evidence except for reiterating the contentions raised before the AO. It is important to note that the firm which was formed in August 2016 could have such sizeable amount of scrap within a year of its operation. The appellant

KANISHKA GUPTA,,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

ITA 119/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Narahari BiswalFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 68Section 69B

68 of the Act. Even during the course of appeal proceedings, the appellant did not furnish and- explanation with supporting documentary evidence except for reiterating the contentions raised before the AO. It is important to note that the firm which was formed in August 2016 could have such sizeable amount of scrap within a year of its operation. The appellant

RONAK GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeals of assessees are dismissed

ITA 120/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Narahari BiswalFor Respondent: Shri K.P.R.R. Murthy

Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 68Section 69B

68 of the Act. Even during the course of appeal proceedings, the appellant did not furnish and- explanation with supporting documentary evidence except for reiterating the contentions raised before the AO. It is important to note that the firm which was formed in August 2016 could have such sizeable amount of scrap within a year of its operation. The appellant

VAISHNAVI BULLION PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

ITA 561/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy

Section 131Section 68

section 68 of the Act.” 5. The grounds raised by the Revenue in ITA No.59/Hyd/2021 reads as under : “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee. 2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in granting relief of Rs.37,11,34,000/- in respect of the addition made u/s 68

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(1), HYDERABAD vs. VAISHNAVI BULLION PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

ITA 58/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy

Section 131Section 68

section 68 of the Act.” 5. The grounds raised by the Revenue in ITA No.59/Hyd/2021 reads as under : “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee. 2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in granting relief of Rs.37,11,34,000/- in respect of the addition made u/s 68

MUSADDILAL GEMS JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

ITA 560/HYD/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy

Section 131Section 68

section 68 of the Act.” 5. The grounds raised by the Revenue in ITA No.59/Hyd/2021 reads as under : “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee. 2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in granting relief of Rs.37,11,34,000/- in respect of the addition made u/s 68

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE3-(1), HYDERABAD vs. M/S. MUSADDILAL GEMS AND JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the addition of Rs

ITA 59/HYD/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Before Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Bhaskar Reddy

Section 131Section 68

section 68 of the Act.” 5. The grounds raised by the Revenue in ITA No.59/Hyd/2021 reads as under : “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case in allowing relief to the assessee. 2. The ld.CIT(A) erred in granting relief of Rs.37,11,34,000/- in respect of the addition made u/s 68

BS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST.COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

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

ITA 2186/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Apr 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Deepak P. Ripote

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 92B

68,29,478/- 4 Vedika Steels Pvt. Ltd. - 5 United Minerals Pvt. Ltd. - Total purchases (related 377,64,15,403/- concerns) Other purchases (unrelated 102,92,43,281/- concerns) Total purchases debited to P&L 480,56,58,684/-. A/c Thus the disallowance of interest was worked out by the AO as under: Disallowance

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

68. read with section 133 of the income-tax Act. 1961 Cash credit (Sundry creditors) Assessment year 2010-11 Assessing Officer issued notice to sundry creditors which could not be served on them He held them as non-existing bogus sundry creditors and made addition to assessee's income Corresponding purchases

SURYA PRABHA SUNKAVALLI,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1327/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri P.Jitendra Kumar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 143(3)Section 40Section 68

bogus purchases then the profit has to be estimated. In PCIT Vs. M/s.Paramshakti Distributors Pvt. Ltd., in Income Tax Appeal No.413 of 2017 on the file of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court the Revenue has not rejected the instances of purchases by accepting the sales, it was proper to tax the profit embedded in such purchases. In ACIT

SHANKAR LAL AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-16(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 150/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad29 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, ARFor Respondent: Ms. P. Sumitha, DR

purchased for Rs. 1 lakh and when the investments in shares became eligible for long term capital gains, it was sold for Rs. 29 lakhs during the period when the general market trend was recessive. He, thus, opined that such shares matched all the features of companies which were providing bogus long term capital gains and made additions under section

ANIRUDH VENKATA RAGI ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 352/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

purchased for Rs. 1 lakh and when the investments in shares became eligible for long term capital gains, it was sold for Rs. 29 lakhs during the period when the general market trend was recessive. He, thus, opined that such shares matched all the features of companies which were providing bogus long term capital gains and made additions under section

ITO., WARD-16(1), HYDERABAD vs. PHOENIX INFRAVENTURES AND PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 867/HYD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Feb 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2022-23 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Phoenix Infraventures & Projects Private Limited, Ward – 16(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan No.Aafcp5499L. (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri R. Mohan Kumar, Advocate Revenue By: Shri B. Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri R. Mohan Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Bala Krishna, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 68

Section 68 of the Act, the assessee needs to prove the identity of the investor company, genuineness of the transactions, and creditworthiness of the investor company. Further, the assessee also needs to prove the source of source of the investor company. Once the assessee proves the identity, genuineness of the transactions, and creditworthiness of the creditor, then the onus shifts

SUNITA DEVI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 188/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaappeal In Assessee Department A.Y Ita No 188/Hyd/2022 Smt.Sunita Devi, Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 Pan:Adppd6447C 1(2) Hyderabad 189/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 190/Hyd/2022 Smt.Anita Jain, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Abjpj1532C 191/Hyd/2022 Smt.Premalata, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Acupp5966A 192/Hyd/2022 Sh. Prakash Chand Jain -Do- 2016-17 (Huf) Hyderabad Pan:Aadhp6992D 194/Hyd/2022 Shri Sajjan Raj Jain (Huf) -Do- 2016-17 Hyderabad Pan:Aaghs6338K 195/Hyd/2022 Sh.Sajjanraj Jain & Wife -Do- -Do- (Huf) Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri K.C.DevdasFor Respondent: Sri B. Ravinder,DR

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

bogus and thereby treating the amount of Rs.8,38,953/- as 'Income from Other Sources' as against appellant's claim of LTCG in response to notice u/s Page 5 of 18 ITA Nos.188 of 2022 and others Sunita Devi Hyderabad.. 148, which was earlier claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) and taxed the same as per provisions of Section

ANITA JAIN,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 190/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaappeal In Assessee Department A.Y Ita No 188/Hyd/2022 Smt.Sunita Devi, Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 Pan:Adppd6447C 1(2) Hyderabad 189/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 190/Hyd/2022 Smt.Anita Jain, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Abjpj1532C 191/Hyd/2022 Smt.Premalata, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Acupp5966A 192/Hyd/2022 Sh. Prakash Chand Jain -Do- 2016-17 (Huf) Hyderabad Pan:Aadhp6992D 194/Hyd/2022 Shri Sajjan Raj Jain (Huf) -Do- 2016-17 Hyderabad Pan:Aaghs6338K 195/Hyd/2022 Sh.Sajjanraj Jain & Wife -Do- -Do- (Huf) Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri K.C.DevdasFor Respondent: Sri B. Ravinder,DR

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

bogus and thereby treating the amount of Rs.8,38,953/- as 'Income from Other Sources' as against appellant's claim of LTCG in response to notice u/s Page 5 of 18 ITA Nos.188 of 2022 and others Sunita Devi Hyderabad.. 148, which was earlier claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) and taxed the same as per provisions of Section

SAJJAN RAJ JAIN (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 194/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaappeal In Assessee Department A.Y Ita No 188/Hyd/2022 Smt.Sunita Devi, Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 Pan:Adppd6447C 1(2) Hyderabad 189/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 190/Hyd/2022 Smt.Anita Jain, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Abjpj1532C 191/Hyd/2022 Smt.Premalata, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Acupp5966A 192/Hyd/2022 Sh. Prakash Chand Jain -Do- 2016-17 (Huf) Hyderabad Pan:Aadhp6992D 194/Hyd/2022 Shri Sajjan Raj Jain (Huf) -Do- 2016-17 Hyderabad Pan:Aaghs6338K 195/Hyd/2022 Sh.Sajjanraj Jain & Wife -Do- -Do- (Huf) Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri K.C.DevdasFor Respondent: Sri B. Ravinder,DR

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

bogus and thereby treating the amount of Rs.8,38,953/- as 'Income from Other Sources' as against appellant's claim of LTCG in response to notice u/s Page 5 of 18 ITA Nos.188 of 2022 and others Sunita Devi Hyderabad.. 148, which was earlier claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) and taxed the same as per provisions of Section

SAJJANRAJ JAIN & WIFE (HUF),HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 (2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 195/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaappeal In Assessee Department A.Y Ita No 188/Hyd/2022 Smt.Sunita Devi, Hyderabad Acit, Central Circle 2016-17 Pan:Adppd6447C 1(2) Hyderabad 189/Hyd/2022 -Do- -Do- 2017-18 190/Hyd/2022 Smt.Anita Jain, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Abjpj1532C 191/Hyd/2022 Smt.Premalata, Hyderabad -Do- 2016-17 Pan:Acupp5966A 192/Hyd/2022 Sh. Prakash Chand Jain -Do- 2016-17 (Huf) Hyderabad Pan:Aadhp6992D 194/Hyd/2022 Shri Sajjan Raj Jain (Huf) -Do- 2016-17 Hyderabad Pan:Aaghs6338K 195/Hyd/2022 Sh.Sajjanraj Jain & Wife -Do- -Do- (Huf) Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri K.C.DevdasFor Respondent: Sri B. Ravinder,DR

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

bogus and thereby treating the amount of Rs.8,38,953/- as 'Income from Other Sources' as against appellant's claim of LTCG in response to notice u/s Page 5 of 18 ITA Nos.188 of 2022 and others Sunita Devi Hyderabad.. 148, which was earlier claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) and taxed the same as per provisions of Section