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.

9 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 131(1)(d)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai617Delhi308Jaipur131Kolkata128Bangalore94Ahmedabad78Chennai74Cochin57Hyderabad45Chandigarh38Indore32Raipur31Pune28Rajkot27Surat26Guwahati24Nagpur23Visakhapatnam14Lucknow9Agra8Varanasi7Patna6Jodhpur5Cuttack3Allahabad2Amritsar1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 26321Section 143(3)13Section 1488Section 41(1)8Addition to Income7Section 686Section 69C4Section 133(6)3Section 142(1)3

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, BAREILLY, BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 619/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 153C

131 (Guj.) On the basis of the above facts and circumstances the notice issued u/s 148 is without jurisdiction and needs to be quashed. GROUND NO :- 2 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned AO is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. The order passed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL CIRCLE), BAREILLY vs. VARUNARJUN TRUST, LUCKNOW

Survey u/s 133A3
Revision u/s 2633
Natural Justice2

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 620/LKW/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 153C

131 (Guj.) On the basis of the above facts and circumstances the notice issued u/s 148 is without jurisdiction and needs to be quashed. GROUND NO :- 2 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned AO is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. The order passed

SH. SUKHVINDER SINGH,KANPUR vs. PR CIT, CENTRAL, KANPUR

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 190/LKW/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 263

131(1)(d) to DDIT(Inv.) Mumbai. It is not the case that the A.O. did not have knowledge of the above reports as the assessments order does find mention of the above reports. (h) The A.O. ignored these reports and the fact that the astronomical increase in share prices was not commensurate to the intrinsic value of the share

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CC-2,, KANPUR vs. SHRI.MOHAMMAD ASFAND AKHTAR, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 144/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: (A). These cross appeals have been filed by the assessee and by Revenue against the impugned appellate order dated 18.04.2022 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kanpur-4 [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] for the A.Y. 2018-19. Grounds of appeal are as under: - ITA. NO. 144/LKW/2022 1

MOHD. ASFAND AKHTAR,KANPUR vs. DEPUTI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CC-2, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 139/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: (A). These cross appeals have been filed by the assessee and by Revenue against the impugned appellate order dated 18.04.2022 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kanpur-4 [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] for the A.Y. 2018-19. Grounds of appeal are as under: - ITA. NO. 144/LKW/2022 1

GURU KRIPA ASSOCIATES,BAREILLY vs. PR. CIT, , BAREILLY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 97/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18
Section 143(3)Section 263

d) Total cash sales from\n01.01.2017to31.03.2017\n342303\n\nAnalysisofmonthwisecashsalesandcashdepositfrom01.04.2015to08\n.11.2015isasunder:\n\nCash Summary for period 01/04/2015 to 08/11/2015\n\nMONTH\nOPENING\nCASH\nSALE\nCASH\nRECEIVED\nCASH\nPAID\nCASH\nDEPOSITE\nD\nCASH\nWITHDRAW\nN\nCLOSING\nAPRIL\n2733.96\n9210152\n110565\n1629148\n7060000\n0\n634303\nMAY\n634302.96\n5066880\n905904\n3600000\n1195279\nJUNE\n1195279\n5561019\n2718922\n3454000\n583376\nJULY\n583375.96\n6750000\n3983968\n2500000\n849408

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, LUCKNOW vs. M/S. U.P. STATE CONSTRUCTION & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, LUCKNOW

ITA 617/LKW/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 251Section 263

1. That the Ld. A.O. wrongly objected the direction of the Ld. CIT Appeal for deleting the addition Rs. 4,95,42,049/- on account of interest of un-utilised funds on the face of finding by the Ld. CIT Appeal that the interest accrued on the advances received by the assesse from the govt. for construction activities

SHRI SWATANTRA KUMAR SHUKLA,KANPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3, KANPUR

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

ITA 575/LKW/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow24 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2015-16 Swatantra Kumar Shukla, Vs. Dy. Cit-3, Kanpur 61/139, Sita Ram Mohal, Kanpur- 208001 (U.P.) Pan: Acaps5484N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 24.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)- 1, Kanpur, Passed On 29.07.2019 Wherein The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Act For The A.Y. 2015-16 On 29.12.2017 Has Been Dismissed. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. That The Ld Cit(A) Was Wrong In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,39,81,850- Made By The Ao Without Any Valid Reason. 2. That The Revenue Was Wrong In Disallowing The Claim Of Long Term Capital Gains U/S 10(38) Of The Act & The Same Is Against Facts & Law. 3. That The Various Case Law Cited By The Revenue In Rejecting The Claim Is Wrong In As Much As The Facts Of The Appellant'S Case Are Distinguishable From The Cited Case Law. 4. That The Revenue Was Wrong In Invoking Section 68 Of The Act & The Same Is Not Justified & Unwarranted. 5. That It Was Wrong On The Part Of Revenue To Invoke Section 68 Of The Act In As Much As Initial Onus On The Assessee To Establish Identity, Credit Capacity Of The Creditor & Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Discharged. 6. That The Finding Of The Ld Ao That 'Long Term Capital Gains Of Rs.1 39,81,850/ Claimed By The Assessee Is Held To Have Been Arranged By The Assessee Through

For Appellant: Sh. P.K. Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

D E R PER NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A)- 1, Kanpur, passed on 29.07.2019 wherein the appeal of the assessee against the orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Act for the A.Y. 2015-16 on 29.12.2017 has been dismissed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, KANPUR vs. M/S. HABIB TANNERY PRIVATE LIMITED, KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department stands dismissed

ITA 564/LKW/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Commissioner Of Income V. M/S Habib Tannery Pvt. Ltd. Tax-6 15-B, 150 Ft. Road Kanpur Jajmau, Kanpur Tan/Pan:Aach4129E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri H. S. Usmani, Cit (Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H. S. Usmani, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

D E R PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.: This appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 11.04.2018, passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II (ld. CIT(A)), Kanpur for Assessment Year 2015-16. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration