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.

16 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 801B(10)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai16Cochin2Indore2Jaipur2Ahmedabad1Kolkata1

Key Topics

Section 115J25Section 143(3)16Addition to Income12Section 14A8Deduction8Section 2507Depreciation7Section 801B5Section 80H5Section 801B(10)4Section 804Exemption3

RAJESH BUILDER,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 22(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2955/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

bogus purchases at 75%, we find that the Tribunal has just estimated and AO has simply levied the penalty on the basis of confirmation of Tribunal order. We are of the view that mere on confirmation of disallowance of expenses and that also on estimate basis, the penalty for concealment of income u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot

DCIT 22(2), NAVI MUMBAI vs. RAJESH BUILDERS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 6131/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai
31 May 2017
AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

bogus purchases at 75%, we find that the Tribunal has just estimated and AO has simply levied the penalty on the basis of confirmation of Tribunal order. We are of the view that mere on confirmation of disallowance of expenses and that also on estimate basis, the penalty for concealment of income u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot

RAJESH BUILDER,MUMBAI vs. CIT 22, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2954/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

bogus purchases at 75%, we find that the Tribunal has just estimated and AO has simply levied the penalty on the basis of confirmation of Tribunal order. We are of the view that mere on confirmation of disallowance of expenses and that also on estimate basis, the penalty for concealment of income u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot

ACIT-24(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S.ATUL PROPERTIES, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 4394/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4393 & 4394/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2010-11 & 2011-12) Acit-24(1) बिधम/ M/S. Atul Properties Room No.604, Piramal 501-502, Trade Avenue, Off Vs. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Suren Road, Western Express Mumbai-400012. Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamfa3756F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Damor (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain & Ms. Carmi Shroff सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeal Preferred By Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-36, Mumbai Dated 29.12.2017 For A.Y.2010-11 & 2011- 12 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor (DR)
Section 80Section 801B(10)

bogus purchases were actually reflected in the sales turnover. 2. “Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing deduction of Rs. 23,32,39,561/ - u/s. 801B(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, notwithstanding that the assessee had suo moto withdrawn claim of exemption under the aforesaid section

ACIT-24(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S.ATUL PROPERTIES, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 4393/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4393 & 4394/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years:2010-11 & 2011-12) Acit-24(1) बिधम/ M/S. Atul Properties Room No.604, Piramal 501-502, Trade Avenue, Off Vs. Chambers, Lalbaug, Parel, Suren Road, Western Express Mumbai-400012. Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aamfa3756F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Damor (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain & Ms. Carmi Shroff सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeal Preferred By Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-36, Mumbai Dated 29.12.2017 For A.Y.2010-11 & 2011- 12 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Jain/Mahaveer Jain &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Damor (DR)
Section 80Section 801B(10)

bogus purchases were actually reflected in the sales turnover. 2. “Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing deduction of Rs. 23,32,39,561/ - u/s. 801B(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, notwithstanding that the assessee had suo moto withdrawn claim of exemption under the aforesaid section

ASST CIT (LTU) 2, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 1547/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 43B

bogus nor it was shown that the apparent is not real. It was also not shown that the unrelated share applicant has been paid any interest for the period commencing from date of subscription to the date of allotment of shares. It has been held that the amendment made by Finance Act 2012 including capital financing transactions as international transactions

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT-2, MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2876/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 28

801B(9) of the Act has already been considered by the Hon"ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad Bench in the case of NIKO Resources Limited Vs. DCIT [22 DTR 225] and held that natural gas is mineral oil eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(9) of the Act. The above decision of the ITAT has been further confirmed

DCIT (LTU)-2, MUMBAI vs. M/S RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2344/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 28

801B(9) of the Act has already been considered by the Hon"ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad Bench in the case of NIKO Resources Limited Vs. DCIT [22 DTR 225] and held that natural gas is mineral oil eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(9) of the Act. The above decision of the ITAT has been further confirmed

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT , MUMBAI

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 1645/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 28

801B(9) of the Act has already been considered by the Hon"ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad Bench in the case of NIKO Resources Limited Vs. DCIT [22 DTR 225] and held that natural gas is mineral oil eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(9) of the Act. The above decision of the ITAT has been further confirmed

ACIT C.C.- 35, MUMBAI vs. M/S. MARICO INDSUTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 4680/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2025AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee- A.Y. 2000-01 - A.Y. 2001-02 - A.Y. 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri MilinFor Respondent: Ms. Monica H Pande,SR AR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 801BSection 80H

801B corporate office expenses and depreciation on assets installed at corporate office ought to be allocated. ITA No.4823/Mum/2006 Marico Industries Ltd Without prejudice to the above, Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not accepting the alternative contention of the Appellant that the corporate office expenses and depreciation on assets installed at the corporate office, if allocable, ought

M/S. MARICO INDUSTRIES LTD. vs. THE ACIT CC-35,

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 2564/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2025AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee- A.Y. 2000-01 - A.Y. 2001-02 - A.Y. 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri MilinFor Respondent: Ms. Monica H Pande,SR AR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 801BSection 80H

801B corporate office expenses and depreciation on assets installed at corporate office ought to be allocated. ITA No.4823/Mum/2006 Marico Industries Ltd Without prejudice to the above, Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not accepting the alternative contention of the Appellant that the corporate office expenses and depreciation on assets installed at the corporate office, if allocable, ought

THE ACIT CC-35 vs. M/S. MARICO INDUSTRIES LTD.,

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 1678/MUM/2005[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2025AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee- A.Y. 2000-01 - A.Y. 2001-02 - A.Y. 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri MilinFor Respondent: Ms. Monica H Pande,SR AR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 801BSection 80H

801B corporate office expenses and depreciation on assets installed at corporate office ought to be allocated. ITA No.4823/Mum/2006 Marico Industries Ltd Without prejudice to the above, Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not accepting the alternative contention of the Appellant that the corporate office expenses and depreciation on assets installed at the corporate office, if allocable, ought

ACIT C.C. 35, MUMBAI vs. M/S. MARICO FOODS LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 7397/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2025AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee- A.Y. 2000-01 - A.Y. 2001-02 - A.Y. 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri MilinFor Respondent: Ms. Monica H Pande,SR AR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 801BSection 80H

801B corporate office expenses and depreciation on assets installed at corporate office ought to be allocated. ITA No.4823/Mum/2006 Marico Industries Ltd Without prejudice to the above, Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not accepting the alternative contention of the Appellant that the corporate office expenses and depreciation on assets installed at the corporate office, if allocable, ought

M/S. MARICO INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CENT. CIR. - 35, MUMBAI

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 4823/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2025AY 2002-2003

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Anikesh Banerjee- A.Y. 2000-01 - A.Y. 2001-02 - A.Y. 2002-03

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Shri MilinFor Respondent: Ms. Monica H Pande,SR AR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 801BSection 80H

801B corporate office expenses and depreciation on assets installed at corporate office ought to be allocated. ITA No.4823/Mum/2006 Marico Industries Ltd Without prejudice to the above, Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not accepting the alternative contention of the Appellant that the corporate office expenses and depreciation on assets installed at the corporate office, if allocable, ought

ACIT -3(4) , MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1438/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR
Section 115JSection 143Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 32Section 92CSection 92C(3)

section 80 IB(9) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO is directed that cost in respect of abortive/unsuccessful blocks are not to be reduced while computing the profits of undertaking namely, KGD which is eligible for deduction under section 80 IB(9) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. Reliance Industries Ltd. ITA No.579/Mum./2021

RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT-CC-3(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 579/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vice Preside & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh Vora a/wFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Sr. AR
Section 115JSection 143Section 144C(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 32Section 92CSection 92C(3)

section 80 IB(9) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO is directed that cost in respect of abortive/unsuccessful blocks are not to be reduced while computing the profits of undertaking namely, KGD which is eligible for deduction under section 80 IB(9) of the Act. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. Reliance Industries Ltd. ITA No.579/Mum./2021