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 40clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,921Delhi1,307Kolkata423Jaipur384Chennai295Ahmedabad257Bangalore218Pune160Hyderabad158Surat154Chandigarh148Indore118Karnataka114Raipur71Amritsar69Rajkot64Nagpur60Cochin59Visakhapatnam56Guwahati42Calcutta37Lucknow35Allahabad32Agra27Cuttack24Jodhpur21Patna10Ranchi10Telangana9SC6Varanasi5Panaji4Dehradun4Jabalpur3Gauhati1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)4Section 1483Section 803Section 260A2Section 682Depreciation2Penalty2Addition to Income2

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)

purchases to the extent of Rs.42 lakhs (approx.) is not proved without any doubt. 5. The GP rate declared by the assessee at 13.49% during the assessment year is not a match to the result declared by the itself in the previous assessment years. 6. M/s. Gem Plaza, engaged in local sales of similar goods declared voluntarily rate

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

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

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

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

40,149/- on 9 consignments of gold and silver imported by M/s Aafloat Textiles (India) Ltd. (Formerly known as M/s Akai Impex Ltd.) under Section 28 alongwith appropriate interest under Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short the ‘Act’). The benefit of exemption in terms of Notification No.117/94-Cus. Dated 27.4.1997 was denied and liability of the goods

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

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

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