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.

2 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 14Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai188Delhi60Kolkata40Amritsar34Ahmedabad26Raipur19Chennai17Jaipur13Indore8Lucknow7Pune3Hyderabad3Visakhapatnam2Dehradun2Nagpur2Chandigarh1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 684Section 10(38)4Capital Gains2Long Term Capital Gains2Bogus/Accommodation Entry2Penny Stock2Exemption2Addition to Income2

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 411/NAG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 10(38)Section 68

purchase and sale of shares which clearly depicted that the LTCG of the assessee is a sham transaction, clearly explained by AO from Para 7.1 to 11.2. v) On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to enumerate while giving relief that how the facts of the case relied upon are similar

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

ITA 410/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: Disposed
ITAT Nagpur
25 Feb 2025
AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 10(38)Section 68

14A was not sustainable.\nIn view of the fact claim made by the assessee is true and correct and same may kindly be allowed.”\nThe learned CIT(A), while considering the submissions of the assessee emphatically, held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer is factually as well as legally incorrect and the disallowance of exemption under section