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 134(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai109Delhi71Cochin57Jaipur48Bangalore33Chennai26Ahmedabad24Raipur16Chandigarh15Hyderabad11Lucknow8Kolkata7Allahabad5Indore3Jodhpur3Amritsar3Pune2Surat1Cuttack1Guwahati1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 1323Section 143(2)2Section 133(6)2Section 69A2Section 145(3)2Search & Seizure2

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHAPUR vs. NATHMAL RUPCHAND JAIN, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1295/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P BoraFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 69A

4) has given the modus operandi of the entire transactions which clearly established that the cash deposited by the assessee was to show bogus purchases, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC was not justified in deleting the addition. He submitted that the said bogus purchases were actually used to provide cash by hawala means to various persons at Delhi with

HETAL RAKESH MEHTA ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1727/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Hetal Rakesh Mehta Acit, Central Circle 1(2), 9/10, Vidya Nagar, 60 Feet Road, Vs. Pune Ghatkopar East, Mumbai – 400077 Pan: Ammpm9670L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms Simran Dhawan (virtual)For Respondent: Shri Ravi Prakash
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

purchases and consequent income arising from these transactions had already been fully disclosed and accounted for in the appellant's income tax return. 3. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring the failure of the Assessing Officer to provide the appellant with a copy