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”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai815Delhi316Ahmedabad156Jaipur136Chennai65Bangalore63Surat59Rajkot57Kolkata56Hyderabad52Chandigarh50Pune46Raipur40Indore38Amritsar25Lucknow23Guwahati22Nagpur20Allahabad20Patna15Jodhpur12Dehradun5Visakhapatnam4Cuttack4Agra4SC3Cochin1Ranchi1Jabalpur1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Varanasi1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)4Section 684Penalty3Section 260A2

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

Section 143(2)Section 24(1)Section 260ASection 272(1)(c)Section 68

purchases by the appellant/assessee from unregistered dealers were   bogus   entries   effected   by   the   appellant/assessee. Resultantly,   the   penalty   proceedings   under   Section

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

The appeal is allowed

C.A. No.-002447-002447 - 2007
Supreme Court
16 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

purchase of SILs for import of bullion and subsequently selling them in the local market. Shri Mahendra Shah stated that he had sold bogus SILs to the importer company. Shri Rasiklal Mehta stated that he and one AtuI Garodia met one Shri D.R. Gulati in Bombay who told that he could provide bogus SIL for which he would charge

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 in respect of leasing vehicles from 40% to 20%. Rs. 10,28,462.00 (iii) Unexplained share application money added back as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 Rs. 19,16,000.00 (iv) Lease rentals of cinematographic films held