Search: bogus purchases | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases 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.

7 results for “bogus purchases”

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai9,060 Delhi3,259 Kolkata1,342 Chennai767 Ahmedabad739 Jaipur718 Pune636 Surat476 Bangalore432 Chandigarh344 Hyderabad279 Indore237 Raipur212 Rajkot150 Nagpur135 Amritsar129 Karnataka128 Visakhapatnam95 Lucknow92 Cuttack88 Guwahati79 Cochin73 Calcutta71 Agra63 Jodhpur59 Patna51 Ranchi40 Allahabad35 Dehradun25 Telangana24 Jabalpur15 Varanasi9 Panaji7 SC7 Orissa3 Gauhati2 ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1 Rajasthan1 Punjab & Haryana1 Bombay1

Key Topics

Section 685 Section 271(1)(c)4 Section 260A3 Section 1483 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 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

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

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