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 9clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai4,545Delhi2,549Kolkata800Jaipur600Ahmedabad567Chennai534Surat434Pune384Bangalore349Chandigarh270Hyderabad222Indore201Raipur166Karnataka126Rajkot123Amritsar118Nagpur108Visakhapatnam73Lucknow71Cochin67Guwahati66Cuttack64Calcutta48Agra45Jodhpur40Allahabad34Patna30Ranchi22Telangana19Dehradun16Jabalpur9Varanasi7SC6Panaji5Orissa2Gauhati2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Section 685Section 271(1)(c)4Section 260A3Section 1483Section 803Penalty3Addition to Income3Section 143(2)2Depreciation2Deduction

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

9 Rs.48,11,72,000.00 as against Rs.80,10,38,505.00 claimed by the assessee. 9.1. In its order dated 07.06.2007, Tribunal noted that the dispute between the parties related to the manner of computing profits of the undertaking of the assessee engaged in the business of generation of power for the purpose of relief under Section

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

2
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

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

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 to confiscation under Section

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

9,744/- for A.Y. 2009-10, but had purchased Shares worth Rs, 90,00,000 in the Assessee Company. Similarly Warner Multimedia Ltd. – Kolkatta filed a NIL return, but had purchased Shares worth Rs. 95,00,000 in the Assessee Company – Respondent. Another example is of Ganga Builders Ltd. – Kolkatta which had filed a return

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

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

9 10 14. It is trite law that an assessing officer can only re­open an assessment if he has ‘reason to believe’ that undisclosed income has   escaped   assessment.     Mere   change   of   opinion   of   the assessing   officer   is   not   a   sufficient   to   meet   the   standard   of ‘reason to  believe’.   Relevant  portion  of Section  147  reads as follows:­ 147.   Income   escaping   assessment