BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI 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.

6 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 12clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,087Delhi2,342Kolkata699Jaipur605Chennai515Ahmedabad490Surat386Bangalore343Pune316Chandigarh251Hyderabad225Indore194Raipur146Karnataka126Rajkot121Amritsar107Nagpur101Visakhapatnam84Lucknow67Cuttack64Cochin63Guwahati60Calcutta46Jodhpur42Agra42Allahabad35Patna29Ranchi24Telangana17Dehradun11Jabalpur7Varanasi7SC6Panaji5Orissa3Gauhati2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 685Section 271(1)(c)4Section 260A3Section 1483Section 803Penalty3Addition to Income3Section 143(2)2Depreciation2Deduction

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

12. Before dissecting the rival submissions, we deem it apposite to reproduce the relevant provisions as applicable at the relevant time for assessment year 1998­1999 as below; “Assessment 13 143.  (1) (a) Where a return has been made under section 139,   or   in  response   to  a   notice   under   sub­section   (1)   of section 142,­ (i) if any tax or interest

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

Appeals are hereby dismissed

2
C.A. No.-013771-013771 - 2015Supreme Court06 Dec 2023

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

Section 260ASection 80

12. Mr. Rupesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the assessee had deliberately inflated its profits on account of generation of electricity only with a view to claim 19 higher deduction under Section 80 IA of the Act. Firstly, the Tribunal and thereafter the High Court had failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter

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

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

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

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

bogus entries of name-lenders. iii. If the enquiries and investigations reveal that the identity of the creditors to be dubious or doubtful, or lack credit-worthiness, then the genuineness of the transaction would not be established. In such a case, the assessee would not have discharged the primary onus contemplated by Section 68 of the Act. 12

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