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.

4 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 127(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai216Delhi135Jaipur97Chandigarh69Bangalore60Cochin57Ahmedabad35Chennai28Indore26Kolkata26Visakhapatnam25Hyderabad20Raipur17Jodhpur15Surat14Lucknow9Pune4Cuttack3Nagpur3Patna2Rajkot2Jabalpur2Amritsar1Guwahati1Panaji1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 12A6Section 1484Section 1323Section 1472Section 143(1)2Section 153A2Section 143(3)2Section 1272

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1130/PUN/2024[-]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025
Section 12Section 127Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

127 of the Act.\"\n7.1.9 Assessee has relied upon the decision of Mumbai ITAT in the case\nof Heart Foundation of India vs CIT in which it has been held that PCIT\nCentral has no jurisdiction to decide about the issue of registration u/s\n12AA of the Income Tax Act. In this regard, it is brought on record that\nthe

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 427/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 10(35)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

bogusness or establish circumstance unerringly and reasonably raising an interference to that effect. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shah & Bros Vs CIT (37 ITR 271] held that suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. Since the transaction from the assessee is genuine no addition or disallowance can be made on this account

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. SURYACHANDRA LALMANI DUBEY, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 206/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

127, dated 23.07.2018. The assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the IT Act was completed on 20.12.2018. 3.1 In this case concrete information was received from TRO-2, Aurangabad that during the course of assessment proceedings for the A.Y. 2014-15 in the case of Mr. Muzammil AM Rashid All Syed, prop. M/s. Shidrah Multi Trade Link

GOPAL EXTRUSIONS PVT LTD,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2),, JALGAON

ITA 1633/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. No.1633/Pun/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath Murkunde
Section 143(3)

2 N Tarika Properties 9 to 10 Assessing Officer found that Investment (P.) Ltd. Vs CIT subscribers bank account statements (2014) 51 taxmanh.com 387 were forged and fabricated as there (SC) were corresponding cash deposits in bank accounts before issue of share application cheques and that deposits were through cash or transfer entries from same bank of entry operators High