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.

3 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 36(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai964Delhi487Jaipur199Kolkata172Chennai148Bangalore120Ahmedabad112Chandigarh108Hyderabad59Amritsar58Indore57Cochin57Rajkot56Raipur45Visakhapatnam44Surat41Pune37Guwahati31Nagpur30Lucknow26Agra24Allahabad23Jodhpur20Patna11Varanasi7Cuttack5Jabalpur3Ranchi3Panaji3Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 1474Section 143(3)4Section 115B3Section 1483Section 692Addition to Income2

M/S MANIKARAN POWER LTD,RANCHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 471/RAN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi08 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayit(Ss)A No. 01/Ran/2025 (Assessment Year: 2022-23) A.C.I.T., Manikaran Power Limited, Central Circle-2, Manikaran Tower, Kilburn Colony, Vs. Ranchi. P.O. Hinoo, Ranchi-834002 (Jharkhand) J.C.I.T. (In Situ), Pan No. Aaecm 4555 F Ranchi. Revenue/ Appellant Respondent/ Assessee Manikaran Power Limited, A.C.I.T., Manikaran Tower, Kilburn Colony, Central Circle-2, Vs. P.O. Hinoo, Ranchi-834002 Ranchi. (Jharkhand) Pan No. Aaecm 4555 F Revenue/ Appellant Respondent/ Assessee

1) of the Act. It was a submission that against the action of the ld. CIT(A) in directing the Assessing Officer to treat the additions representing the bogus purchases under Section 37 as against Section 68 adopted by the Assessing Officer, the revenue is in appeal. It was a further submission that the ld. CIT(A) had in respect

RANJIT PRASAD SAHU,BOKARO vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HAZARIBAGH

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 312/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed
ITAT Ranchi
05 May 2025
AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Ranjit Prasad Sahu, A.C.I.T., Hosir, P.O. Lalpania, Dist.- Hazaribagh. Vs. Bokaro-829149 (Jharkhand) Pan No. Akkpk 9351 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 147Section 271ASection 69Section 69A

36,66,490/- under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) on which tax was payable under Section 115BBE of the Act. A penalty proceeding under Section 271AAC of the Act was also initiated on the ground that the assessee has failed to give any explanation on the source of cash deposits in response

KULDIP SINGH,RANCHI vs. DCIT/ACIT, CIRCLE-1, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 180/RAN/2025[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.180/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kuldip Singh…………………….……….……...................……….……Appellant The Avenue Vishnupuri Marg, Upper Burdwan Compound, Lalpur, Ranchi- 834001. [Pan: Agjps6921P] Vs. Dcit/Acit, Circle-1, Ranchi…...…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Kailash Gautam, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 05, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 10, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 06.03.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

purchased land measuring 0.67 acre for a consideration of ₹42,30,000, whereas the stamp duty valuation was ₹1,20,02,000, and the difference of ₹77,72,000 was treated as income. 3. Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee raised specific legal grounds, challenging the validity of reopening under section 147, as well as grounds on merits. However