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.

5 results for “bogus purchases”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,969Delhi729Jaipur286Ahmedabad273Chennai151Kolkata143Pune125Karnataka105Hyderabad102Bangalore100Surat95Chandigarh76Indore73Rajkot59Raipur43Calcutta35Nagpur31Amritsar31Lucknow24Guwahati22Allahabad20Patna15Jodhpur13Visakhapatnam11Cuttack10Agra10Telangana5Dehradun5Ranchi4SC3Cochin3Jabalpur2Panaji1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Gauhati1Varanasi1

Key Topics

Section 1486Addition to Income5Section 672Section 5A2Section 32Section 142(1)2Penalty2

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)

bogus production was resorting to fict itious purchase of inputs on the strength of invoices which are not duty paid in voices would be getting excise duty refund equivalent only to the duty paid on a ctual value addition made by such manufacturers who have industries in these spe cified areas. (iii) The excise duty exemption would be available only

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Byru Venkateswarlu

Appeal is dismissed

ITTA/341/2005HC Telangana21 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 271(1)(c)

penalty?” (2 of 10) [ITA-341/2005] 3. Counsel for the appellant has contended that the Assessing Officer has considered the case of the assessee and observed as under: “As for bogus purchases

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

Penalty Order dated 30.10.2012. Findings of Tribunal in common order dated 29.05.2015. 1. 1. Thomson Group is a single entity Entire sales turnover of the Group (except meager sales turnover conceded by the Rose Poultry Farm) is shown as made to ultimate customers. ie., unregistered dealers and verification has confirmed that such addresses or purchasers of live chicken shown

The Commissioner of Income Tax -III vs. Sri T.C. Reddy

The appeal stands dismissed

ITTA/577/2011HC Telangana28 Feb 2012

bogus and without any justification. This works out to Rs.6,45,000/-. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) r.w 274 of the Income-tax Act for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars are initiated separately. (ii) The assessee has also claimed capital expenditure of Rs. 168600/- as a revenue expenditure. The capital expenditure pertains to fees paid to Registrar

Commissioner of Income Tax, vs. Agricultural Market Committee

ITTA/413/2011HC Telangana17 Nov 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,SANJAY KUMAR

For Appellant: - Suresh Kumar SheetlaniFor Respondent: - Income Tax Officer-1 (3)
Section 133Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260Section 282

bogus and unexplained income of the assessee from undisclosed sources vide assessment order dated 5th December, 2006 under Sections 144 and 147 of the Act. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee had filed an appeal before the first appellate authority. The first appellant authority vide order dated 9th September, 2009 cancelled the said assessment order, declaring the same