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 70clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai668Delhi446Jaipur160Chennai120Bangalore111Kolkata97Chandigarh95Ahmedabad67Hyderabad64Cochin58Surat49Raipur44Amritsar39Indore34Visakhapatnam31Rajkot27Lucknow23Pune21Jodhpur18Nagpur18Guwahati15Allahabad12Agra10Cuttack6Ranchi2Dehradun2Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 56(2)(vii)3Section 143(3)2Addition to Income2

SRI KAMLESH KUMAR SINGH,DALTONGANJ vs. ACIT,CIR-1, RANCHI

ITA 53/RAN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Aug 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 49/Ran/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Smt. Madhu Singh,...................................Appellant Hamidganj, Daltonganj-822101 [Pan: Bbjps0426B] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-1, Ranchi & I.T.A. Nos. 53 & 54/Ran/2017 Assessment Years: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 Shri Kamlesh Kumar Singh,...................Appellant Hamidganj, Daltonganj-822101 [Pan: Afzps8288J] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,....Respondent Circle-1, Ranchi Appearances By: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri P.K. Koley, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 22, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 7Th, 2023 1 Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Smt. Madhu Singh & Ita Nos. 53 & 54/Ran/2017 Assessment Years: 2008-2009 & 2009-2010 Shri Kamlesh Kr. Singh

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 234A

section 10(38) of the Act was genuine and justified and in no way can be held to be assessed in the hands of assessee’s husband Shri Kamlesh Kr. Singh. Thus the ld. CIT(Appeals) was not justified in confirming the addition substantively in the hands of her husband. Since the alleged LTCG is a genuine one and cannot

KAVITA CHAURASIA,RANCHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(5), RANCHI, RANCHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 65/RAN/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi06 Jul 2023AY 2014-15
Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

70,000/-. However, the assessee had purchased the flat at a consideration Rs.14,75,000/- as settled vide agreement of sale dated 19.01.2011. 5. The ld. CIT(A) did not accept the above contention of the assessee observing that the advance payment of Rs.1,00,000/- as mentioned in the said agreement was paid in cash and therefore, as required