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.

7 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 2clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai6,316Delhi2,905Kolkata1,002Jaipur679Ahmedabad663Chennai592Surat465Pune419Bangalore390Chandigarh300Hyderabad244Indore217Raipur174Rajkot144Karnataka128Amritsar120Nagpur120Visakhapatnam88Lucknow82Guwahati75Cuttack70Cochin67Calcutta67Agra54Jodhpur51Patna38Allahabad35Ranchi30Telangana20Dehradun19Jabalpur14Varanasi8SC7Panaji5Orissa3Gauhati2Bombay1Rajasthan1ASHOK 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

bogus entry, in the   sense   that   it   was   only   purportedly   shown   to   be   the amount   standing   to   the   credit   of   the   fifteen   persons, purportedly on account of assessee having purchased goods no credit from them, while since no goods were purchased, the   amount   did   represent   income   of   the   assessee   from undisclosed sources, which the assessee had only brought on record

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

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

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

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)

2 declared GP rate of 43.8% (even without considering the value of export incentives) in assessment year 1997-98." Thereafter the books of accounts of the assessee were rejected by the Assessing Officer and he resorted to best judgment assessment under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order mentioned some comparable cases

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

Section 114A of the Act was imposed and Rs.50 lakhs was imposed on Shri Mahendra Shah and Rs.25 lakhs each on four other appellants before the CESTAT. 2. Case of the department that the Special Import License (in short ‘SIL’) purchased by the importer from brokers for clearance of gold and silver was forged and, therefore, was not valid

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

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