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.

6 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 54Fclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai38Delhi21Jaipur8Ahmedabad6Kolkata6Chandigarh3Telangana3Indore3Pune3Hyderabad2Nagpur2Chennai2Cuttack1Karnataka1Bangalore1Raipur1Surat1

Key Topics

Section 26314Section 143(3)6Section 685Section 54F4Capital Gains4Addition to Income4Section 1473Section 133(6)3Unexplained Cash Credit3Disallowance

SRI BABLU SUR,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-44(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 970/KOL/2016[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2016AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amitabha Bhattacharya, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 54F

section 54F of the Act are very clear in this regard as rightly pointed out by the ld DR. Hence the claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act is dismissed. However, we find from the personal balance sheet of the assessee, that lot of amounts have been spent on the subject mentioned property out of housing loan and interest

ITO, WARD-32(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. SHRI SHALEEN KHEMANI,, KOLKATA

ITA 1945/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: Disposed
3
Long Term Capital Gains2
Revision u/s 2632
ITAT Kolkata
18 Oct 2017
AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 1945/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 I.T.O., Ward-32(4), Kolkata -Vs- Shaleen Khemani [Pan: Agapk 6810 K] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri David Z. Chowngthu, Addl. CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

Section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it is exempt. The learned Assessing officer has failed to take into consideration the movement of shares which happens through the depositories owned by the Government of India and payment of levies to the Central Government on each transaction of sale which makes the transaction genuine. 4.3. The assessee further placed

K.R.OVERSEAS PVT. LTD,KOLKATA vs. PCIT-(CENTRAL)-2, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per the terms indicated above

ITA 185/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 68

bogus and disallowed. 24. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and in light of the aforesaid decisions, and in accordance with the amendment made in section 263 w.e.f. 01.06.2015 by way of Explanation 2, the assessment order of the A.Y. 2015-16 is held to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial

M/S RANI SATI AGRO TECH PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD-12(3), KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 85/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT D/R
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 68

54F is available in the order under section 263 which is not disputed by the assessee before ITAT." 13. We find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anil Kumar reported in 335 ITR 83 has held that where it was discernible from record that the A.O has applied his mind to the issue

RAMOTAR CHOUDHARI HUF,KOLKATA vs. PCIT 5 KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1336/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.1336/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ramotar Choudhari Huf.……..…………............…...……………....Appellant 7Th Floor, R.N 25 Fortuna Tower, 23A N.S. Road, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aanhr9093K] Vs. Pcit-5, Kolkata………….…...............................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. K. Pransukha, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 06, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 09, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Revision Order Dated 18.10.2023 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Pr. Cit’] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Action Of The Pr. Cit In Exercising His Revision Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Act & Thereby Directing The Assessing Officer To Frame The Assessment Afresh. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,55,970/- On 21.01.2014. Thereafter, An Information Was Received By The Assessing Officer From Investigation Wing That The Assessee Has

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 263

bogus LTCG by the assessee on such transactions…” The ld. Counsel in this respect has submitted that the reopening of the assessment was made only on the reason that the Assessing Officer had received information from the investigation wing that the assessee was beneficiary of a transaction from Blue Print Securities Limited. That the Assessing Officer in the reopened assessment

SRI RAMKRISHNA GHOSH,MEDINIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-27(1), HALDIA, HALDIA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 267/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S K. Tulsiyan, Advocate, Ms. PujaFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 54FSection 68

54F in the remand proceedings, ld. AO had issued notices u/s. 133(6) of the Act to all the 11 parties from whom assessee had purchased various materials used in construction of residential building. Ld. AO noted that two parties viz., Sumit Marbles and Madan Trading denied having transactions with the assessee. Ld. AO further observed that major