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.

3 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 35(2)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,813Delhi1,290Jaipur368Kolkata340Chennai323Ahmedabad242Bangalore228Chandigarh150Surat150Pune123Karnataka116Indore114Hyderabad113Raipur78Amritsar66Rajkot65Cochin59Nagpur49Visakhapatnam47Guwahati44Calcutta36Lucknow35Cuttack35Allahabad28Jodhpur23Agra15Telangana13Patna13Varanasi6Ranchi6Panaji5Jabalpur5SC3Orissa2Dehradun2

Key Topics

Section 803Addition to Income2

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

35. We may now take up the first of the three additional issues. As we have noted at the very outset, the issue is or the question raised by the revenue is whether the Tribunal could ignore compliance to the statutory provisions relating to exercise of option to adopt Written Down Value (WDV) method in place of the straight line

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 143
Section 143(2)
Section 148

purchase and sale. It is true, as the High Court has observed, that this information could have been acquired by the Income Tax Officer if he had exercised due diligence at the time of the original assessment itself. It does not appear, however,   that   the   attention   of   the   Income   Tax   Officer   was directed by anything before him to the fact

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)

35% in its assessment for the assessment year 1997098. 7. M/s. Dhadda Exports, another assessee dealing in same items, but doing export business http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 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