Search: bogus purchases | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

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.

10 results for “bogus purchases”

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,888 Delhi1,611 Kolkata480 Ahmedabad408 Jaipur381 Chennai325 Chandigarh218 Bangalore207 Surat192 Raipur151 Hyderabad151 Pune145 Indore136 Rajkot125 Amritsar87 Nagpur77 Guwahati70 Lucknow70 Visakhapatnam67 Cochin64 Agra50 Patna47 Jodhpur45 Allahabad33 Ranchi30 Cuttack30 Dehradun22 Jabalpur13 SC10 Varanasi8 Panaji4 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 685 Section 271(1)(c)4 Section 1483 Section 260A3 Section 803 Penalty3 Addition to Income3 Section 143(2)2 Depreciation2 Deduction

M/S. KACHWALA GEMS vs. JOINT COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

C.A. No.-005809-005809 - 2006Supreme Court14 Dec 2006

For Appellant: "1. The assessee has not maintained and kept anyFor Respondent: Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

Section 144Section 145(3)

bogus purchases, and the books of accounts were wrongly rejected. In our opinion, whether there were bogus purchases or not, is a finding

BASIR AHMED SISODIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER

Appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-006110-006110 - 2009Supreme Court24 Apr 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR

2

Section 24(1)

Section 260A

Section 272(1)(c)

Section 68

bogus entries and was justly added to the income of the appellant/assessee. The Court also noted other reasons to dismiss the appeal. Relevant part of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: ““In our view, none of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant has force. Learned counsel has proceeded on the basic assumption, about the factum of purchase

COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS(PREVENTIVE) vs. M/S. AAFLOAT TEXTILES (I) P.LTD.&ORS

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-002447-002447 - 2007Supreme Court16 Feb 2009

Bench: The Cestat Was To The Order Of Commissioner Of Customs Who Confirmed The Duty Demand Of

Section 111Section 114ASection 28Section 28(1)Section 28A

purchased the above bogus SIL from one Shri Sushil Kumar Lohia who, in turn admitted that the SIL was given

M/S.VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-I

C.A. No.-007115-007115 - 2005Supreme Court06 Feb 2007

For Respondent: Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-I

Section 260ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

purchase and lease of cinematographic films held to be bogus Rs. 57,51,520.00 (ii) Reduction of claim of depreciation

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CULCUTTA vs. KARAM CHAND THAPAR & BROS. (P) LTD

In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs

- 0Supreme Court14 Feb 1989

For Respondent: KARAM CHAND THAPAR & BROS. (P) LTD

purchase of these shares had anything to do with the control of the companies concerned. The Tribunal relied upon the circumstances that the sales were at the market rates or going rates and hence, there was no question of making a bogus

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S JINDAL STEEL THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

Appeals are hereby dismissed

C.A. No.-013771-013771 - 2015Supreme Court06 Dec 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA

Section 260ASection 80

purchased twenty five MV turbines on and around 08.07.1998 for the purpose of its eligible business. Assessee claimed depreciation on the said turbines at the rate of 25% on WDV basis. On perusal of the materials on record, assessing officer held that in view of the change in the law with regard to allowance of depreciation on the assets

MEENAKSHI MILLS, MADURAI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,MADRAS

In the result, the appeals fail, and are dismissed with

- 0Supreme Court26 Sept 1956

For Respondent: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,MADRAS

purchasers and recovered the price therefor, it is only the appellant that could -be taxed for the profits made thereon and not the Managing Agent. It is of no consequence that in form the order is that the profits of the intermediaries should be added to-those of the (1) [1939] 4 A.E.R.116. 728 appellant, because, as pointed

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL) 1 vs. NRA IRON AND STEEL PVT. LTD. THROUGH DIRECTOR

C.A. No.-002463-002463 - 2019Supreme Court05 Mar 2019

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Section 148Section 68

purchased. The Company had not enclosed their Bank Statement showing the source of fund for share application money. (50,00,000/- Ch. No. 069123 dt. 17.11.2008 & Rs. 40,00,000/- Ch. No. 069124 dt. 17.11.2008 drawn on Deutsche bank. The Company had shown income of Rs. 10,730/- for A.Y. 2009-10 Rs. 90,00,000 invested on 17.11.2008 Return

SHEO NATH SINGH vs. APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, CALCUTTA

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the

- 0Supreme Court12 Aug 1971

For Respondent: APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX, CALCUTTA

purchased by the said M. S. Oberoi. It was maintained by the assessee that he has ,filed returns of his income in respect of the relevant assessment years and that during the assessment for the year 1945-46, the assessee had disclosed to the Income-tax Officer, District II,(2) Calcututa that he had received the aforesaid amount

NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-001008-001008 - 2020Supreme Court03 Apr 2020

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 148

bogus transactions and that these transactions were done with a view to get the undisclosed income, for which tax had not been paid, back to India by this circuitous round tripping. 4 5 6. The assessing officer relies upon the order of the DRP holding that there is reason to believe that funds received by NNPLC were actually the funds