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.

35 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 92clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai596Delhi279Jaipur106Bangalore91Chandigarh78Ahmedabad76Cochin57Chennai55Surat45Hyderabad35Visakhapatnam35Kolkata34Indore28Guwahati28Rajkot27Raipur25Pune23Lucknow15Amritsar13Nagpur11Allahabad7Agra6Jodhpur3Dehradun2Jabalpur2Cuttack1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 153B72Addition to Income28Section 292C24Section 153A14Section 143(3)12Section 2(31)12Limitation/Time-bar12Section 1479Search & Seizure

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

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

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

Showing 1–20 of 35 · Page 1 of 2

9
Section 1488
Section 80G8
Disallowance7

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

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

VENKATARAMA SATYA SURYA NARAYANA MURTHY RAJU SAGI,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 788/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.788/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2018-19) Shri Venkatarama Satya Surya Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-6(1), Hyderabad. Narayana Murthy Raju Sagi, Hyderabad. Pan:Athps0867M (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram & Shri P. Vinod, Advocates रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Narender Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 23/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 08/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M. : This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Venkatarama Satya Surya Narayana Murthy Raju Sagi (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”), Dated 30.04.2025 For The A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram & Shri PFor Respondent: Shri Narender Kumar Naik
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 37

bogus purchases amounting to Rs.13,58,94,043/- from four parties. Accordingly, notice under section 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 31.03.2022. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed his return of income on 10.11.2022, declaring the same income of Rs.4,92

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1084/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Sourabh Soparkar, Advocate Represented by Department : Dr. Narendra Kumar NFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 11/11/2025
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 68Section 80Section 801ASection 80GSection 92C

92,000/- was added to the total income of the assessee. 3.1 According to the newly inserted explanation to section 14A, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the act, the provisions of section 14A shall apply and shall be deemed to have always applied in a case where the income not forming part of the total income

ACIT., CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. PENNA CEMENT INDUSTRIES LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1083/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 68Section 80Section 801ASection 80GSection 92C

92,000/- was added to the total income of the\nassessee.\n3.1 According to the newly inserted explanation to section 14A,\nnotwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the act, the\nprovisions of section 14A shall apply and shall be deemed to have\nalways applied in a case where the income not forming part of the\ntotal income

KINETA GLOBAL LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 800/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.800/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Kineta Global Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Hyderabad. Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Pan: Aacck7944A Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Sri S. Venkateswarlu, Tax Consultant रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 12/11/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 19/11/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Company Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 03/03/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “Act”) Dated 21/02/2024 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessee Company

For Appellant: Sri S. VenkateswarluFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250(6)

purchases which the assessee company had claimed to have made from M/s. Sauve Corporation India Pvt. Ltd, were bogus and, thus, the entire amount of bogus expenditure was treated by him as the income of the assessee company. The AO, based on his aforesaid observations after reducing the profit of Rs. 18,17,636/-, that the assessee company had claimed

KUPPAM EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY,KUPPAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS), TIRUPATI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 29/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Sancheti, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Madan Mohan Meena, DR

purchases are made by the assessee in good faith and all the bills are given at hand length prices. The said transactions are made in the normal course of the business. As such there are no bogus bills/Purchases so as to be subjected to an addition on the ground.” 4. The assessee also raised the following additional ground before

REEMA AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 353/HYD/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Feb 2026AY 2014-15
For Appellant: CA P Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: \nDr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 111ASection 139(1)

92,500)\n(599,19,659)\n(629,91,135)\nIt is noticed from the details furnished by the assessee that the book value of shares of\nShree Shaleen was Rs 10.60 per share (before split) as on 31-03-2013 and Rs 0.21 per\nshare(after split) as on 31-3-2014 whereas the assessee has purchased

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

VENU GOPAL KARWA,KARIMNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 174/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Venu Gopal Karwa Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Karimnagar Central Circle 1(2) Pan:Aavpk2698B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri V Guna Sekhar Reddy, Ca Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 25/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 31/07/2023 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.10.2018 Of The Learned Cit (A)-11, Hyderabad, Relating To A.Y.2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derives Income From Salary, Hose Property & Other Sources. He Filed His Return Of Income On 6.3.2016 Belatedly Declaring Taxable Income At Rs.47,71,060/-. The Return Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under Cass. Accordingly Statutory Notices U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Were Issued & Served On The Assessee To Which The Ar Of The Assessee Appeared From Time To Time & Furnished The Requisite Details. One Of The Cass Reasons Page 1 Of 14

For Appellant: Shri V Guna Sekhar Reddy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT (DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)

92,360 Kushal Karwa 2015-16 Rs.42,38,990 Santosh Karwa 2015-16 Rs.42,41,083 Arjun Karwa 2015-16 Rs.42,76,178 Karhik Karwa 2015-16 Rs.47,75,582 Manju Karwa 2015-16 Rs.22,66,130 Page 2 of 14 ITA 174 of 2019 Venu Gopal Karwa 4. From the details furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noted

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. RITHWIK PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 518/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Oct 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: CA, P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Madan Mohan Meena (in
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 35DSection 37(1)

92,29,940/- vide order dated 29.03.2022\npassed u/sec.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n4.\nAggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee\npreferred appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned\nCIT(A), the assessee challenged the disallowance of ROC fee\nmade by the Assessing Officer contending, inter alia, that, the\nsaid ROC fee paid

DCIT., CIRCLE-2(1), HYDRABAD vs. KALPTARU INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

In the result, appeal ITA

ITA 1077/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 147

bogus claim of the\n\n13\nITA.No.1077/Hyd./2025\nassessee from the reverse and circular transactions carried\nout by the assessee. The assessee carried out premeditated\nand circularised transactions with the sole purpose of\ngenerating artificial/bogus profit/loss to the respective\nparties. The learned DR further submitted that when a\nspecific and reliable information relevant for assessment of\nincome

KAVERI INFRA PROJECT PVT LTD,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 511/HYD/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)

92,490/-(Rupees two lakhs ninety two thousand four hundred ninety only), as disclosed in the trading account for the year ended on 31.3.1998. The appellate authority thus found that without purchases of marbles, there could be no sale and disclosure of closing stock in the trading account. In other words, the materials on record would clearly suggest that

KAVERI POLYMERS,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 513/HYD/2022[2015-165]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Mar 2023AY 2015-165

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)

92,490/-(Rupees two lakhs ninety two thousand four hundred ninety only), as disclosed in the trading account for the year ended on 31.3.1998. The appellate authority thus found that without purchases of marbles, there could be no sale and disclosure of closing stock in the trading account. In other words, the materials on record would clearly suggest that

KAVERI INFRA PROJECT PVT LTD,WARANGAL vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

ITA 510/HYD/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: Shri K.C. DevdasFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 271Section 271(1)(c)

92,490/-(Rupees two lakhs ninety two thousand four hundred ninety only), as disclosed in the trading account for the year ended on 31.3.1998. The appellate authority thus found that without purchases of marbles, there could be no sale and disclosure of closing stock in the trading account. In other words, the materials on record would clearly suggest that

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)

92,299 Total 1623092299 13. The learned AR submitted that the Assessing Officer in Para 4.14 has reproduced the seized material seized from the premises of Mr. Mukesh Sharma and others at Bhopal and the following document at page 23 to 25 of the order referred to: Page

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)

92,299 Total 1623092299 13. The learned AR submitted that the Assessing Officer in Para 4.14 has reproduced the seized material seized from the premises of Mr. Mukesh Sharma and others at Bhopal and the following document at page 23 to 25 of the order referred to: Page

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)

92,299 Total 1623092299 13. The learned AR submitted that the Assessing Officer in Para 4.14 has reproduced the seized material seized from the premises of Mr. Mukesh Sharma and others at Bhopal and the following document at page 23 to 25 of the order referred to: Page

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)

92,299 Total 1623092299 13. The learned AR submitted that the Assessing Officer in Para 4.14 has reproduced the seized material seized from the premises of Mr. Mukesh Sharma and others at Bhopal and the following document at page 23 to 25 of the order referred to: Page