Search: bogus purchases

2 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 69Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi114 Jaipur92 Mumbai47 Chandigarh33 Chennai26 Bangalore25 Hyderabad17 Agra15 Rajkot12 Ahmedabad12 Kolkata10 Pune8 Indore7 Visakhapatnam5 Jodhpur3 Jabalpur2 Lucknow2 Raipur2 Surat2 Guwahati1 Cochin1 Dehradun1 Cuttack1

Key Topics

Section 153C5 Section 2634 Section 153A(1)3 Section 153C(1)2 Section 142(1)2 Section 143(3)2 Section 1472

RENU ANANDANI,JABALPUR vs. NFAC, NFAC, DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 120/JAB/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

bogus short term capital loss of Rs. 21,72,628/- should be disallowed but the entire investment of Rs. 28,89,600/-. Therefore, he added back the balance of Rs. 7,16,972/- in the hands of the assessee as unexplained investment under section 69B of the I.T. Act. Furthermore, the ld. AO noted that short term capital gain

RENU ANANDANI,JABALPUR vs. NFAC, NFAC, DELHI

SHRI NITIN SHARMA,JABALPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JABALPUR

RENU ANANDANI,JABALPUR vs. NFAC, NFAC, DELHI

SHRI NITIN SHARMA,JABALPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2, JABALPUR