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”+ Section 271(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai555Delhi236Jaipur88Ahmedabad81Bangalore63Chennai55Surat49Indore46Rajkot36Kolkata32Chandigarh30Hyderabad30Raipur29Pune22Amritsar22Allahabad20Guwahati18Nagpur16Lucknow14Jodhpur9Patna4Agra3Cuttack3SC3Visakhapatnam1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Dehradun1Jabalpur1Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)4Section 684Section 260A2Penalty2

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with effect from 1.4.1976? FACTS (C.A. NO. 7115 OF 2005) For the assessment year 1996-97, the assessee-appellant returned an income of Rs. 1,32,44,507.29 subject to depreciation. The depreciation claimed for the year was Rs.1,47,97,995.01 computed as under:- Depreciation for Assessment year

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

Section 271(1)(c) dated 17.11.2006 qua the appellant/assessee for the self­same assessment year 1998­1999.  The Income­Tax Officer had passed the said order as a consequence of the conclusion reached in the assessment order which had by then become final upto the stage of ITAT vide order dated 27.4.2006 ­ to the effect that the stated purchases by the appellant/assessee from

MEENAKSHI MILLS, MADURAI vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,MADRAS

In the result, the appeals fail, and are dismissed with

- 0Supreme Court26 Sept 1956
For Respondent: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,MADRAS

271, 720 meaning of those observations Should be clarified, lest error and misconception should embarrass and fog the administration of law. The position that emerges on the authorities may thus be summed up: (1)When the point -for determination is a pure question of law such as construction of a statute or document of title, the decision of the Tribunal