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”+ Cash Depositclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,576Delhi1,234Chennai382Jaipur329Kolkata315Ahmedabad215Bangalore149Chandigarh143Indore102Surat102Hyderabad85Pune72Nagpur68Rajkot66Cochin61Amritsar57Calcutta37Visakhapatnam37Guwahati35Raipur33Lucknow33Jodhpur28Allahabad25Agra22Cuttack19Karnataka9Varanasi8Patna6Jabalpur6Panaji3Dehradun3Telangana3Ranchi3Orissa2SC1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 13(1)(a)3Section 1083Addition to Income3Section 672Section 13(1)(b)2Section 5A2Section 32Revision u/s 2632

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Hycons Infrastructure (India) Ltd.

The appeals are dismissed

ITTA/411/2013HC Telangana25 Sept 2013
Section 3Section 3(3)Section 5ASection 5A(1)

deposited Rs. 2.00 crores during investigation. 39. M/S Sharp Menthol India Limited, Delhi New Delhi 25.00 Clearanc e of raw material (Crude Mentha Oil) without manufacturing excisable goods and b y misdeclaring it as finished goods (Deterpinated/ fractionated Mentha Oil) and wrongly claiming benefit of area based exemption and irregularly passing on a Ce nvat credit to the purchaser. Goods

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax [TDS] vs. M/s.KCIL-MEIL [JV]

ITTA/212/2015HC Telangana02 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 55Section 55(5)(a)Section 67

bogus or such persons did not exist in such a circumstance the inference drawn by the intelligence officer appear to be unrealistic and bad in law". Over and above, we also concur with the finding of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) that no honest or a pain staking enquiry was done by the Intelligence Officer to ascertain whether the addressees shown

The Commissioner of Income -Tax - III, vs. Shri Taher Ali

ITTA/322/2008HC Telangana04 Apr 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 108Section 13(1)(a)Section 13(1)(b)Section 13(1)(e)

purchase of the stamp paper of the agreement Exh.8. He deposed that the agreement dated 1.7.1970 bears his signature as witness no.1. He did not put the date below his signature. He signed the said document in 1970 at the suit premises on 1.7.1970. He denied that he had signed on it in 1980. On 1.7.1970, defendant no.1