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 17(2)(iii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,650Delhi1,305Jaipur396Kolkata348Ahmedabad234Chennai231Surat195Bangalore191Chandigarh184Pune140Karnataka117Hyderabad111Indore107Raipur80Amritsar76Nagpur74Rajkot68Cochin59Guwahati43Lucknow43Visakhapatnam38Calcutta38Cuttack32Agra24Jodhpur23Allahabad22Patna10Telangana9SC6Varanasi6Panaji5Jabalpur2Gauhati2Ranchi1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Dehradun1

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

bogus   entries   effected   by   the   appellant/assessee. Resultantly,   the   penalty   proceedings   under   Section   271   were initiated by the Officer.  That order, however, has now been set aside by the appellate authority [CIT(A)] in the appeal preferred by the appellant/assessee, vide order dated 13.1.2011 with a finding that the appellant/assessee had not made any concealment of 10 income   or   furnished   inaccurate

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

2
C.A. No.-007115-007115 - 2005
Supreme Court
06 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

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

iii) any undertaking which develops, develops and operates or maintains and operates an industrial park notified by the Central Government in accordance with the scheme framed and notified by that Government for the period beginning on the 1st day of April, 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2002 : Provided that in a case where an undertaking develops

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

17 The Delhi High Court in CIT v. Oasis Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd.5, held that : “The initial onus is upon the assessee to establish three things necessary to obviate the mischief of Section 68. Those are: (i) identity of the investors; (ii) their creditworthiness/investments; and (iii) genuineness of the transaction. Only when these three ingredients are established prima facie, the department