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.

9 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 17(2)(iii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,650Delhi1,305Jaipur396Kolkata348Ahmedabad234Chennai231Surat195Bangalore191Chandigarh184Pune140Karnataka117Hyderabad111Indore107Raipur80Amritsar76Nagpur74Rajkot68Cochin59Guwahati43Lucknow43Visakhapatnam38Calcutta38Cuttack32Agra24Jodhpur23Allahabad22Patna10Telangana9SC6Varanasi6Panaji5Jabalpur2Gauhati2Ranchi1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Dehradun1

Key Topics

Section 13(1)(a)3Section 1083Addition to Income3Section 13(1)(b)2Section 1002Section 5A2Section 32Revision u/s 2632

The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, vs. M/S Gulf Oil Corporation Pvt. Ltd.,

ITTA/195/2008HC Telangana23 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2,01,250 19.2.92 40.25 9,80,000 16.1.92 Rs.4,43,750/­ c) 30,000 12,22,500 19.2.92 40.75 28 L & T 19,45,000 18.2.92 a) 10,000 194.50 21,30,000 b) 5,000 9,35,000 19.2.92 187.00 21.1.92 142.00 Rs.7,50,000/­ Total LossRs.16,88,250/­ 8.2. The   Assessing   Officer   after   verification  found that

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. M/s.Jayalakshmi Chits

ITTA/211/2008HC Telangana23 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2,01,250 19.2.92 40.25 9,80,000 16.1.92 Rs.4,43,750/­ c) 30,000 12,22,500 19.2.92 40.75 28 L & T 19,45,000 18.2.92 a) 10,000 194.50 21,30,000 b) 5,000 9,35,000 19.2.92 187.00 21.1.92 142.00 Rs.7,50,000/­ Total LossRs.16,88,250/­ 8.2. The   Assessing   Officer   after   verification  found that

The Commissioner of Income Tax - VI vs. M/s. Manikanta Iron AND Hardware

ITTA/196/2008HC Telangana02 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

2,01,250 19.2.92 40.25 9,80,000 16.1.92 Rs.4,43,750/­ c) 30,000 12,22,500 19.2.92 40.75 28 L & T 19,45,000 18.2.92 a) 10,000 194.50 21,30,000 b) 5,000 9,35,000 19.2.92 187.00 21.1.92 142.00 Rs.7,50,000/­ Total LossRs.16,88,250/­ 8.2. The   Assessing   Officer   after   verification  found that

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri Chirla Rama Reddy, Contract

Appeal is dismissed with costs

ITTA/70/2007HC Telangana23 Mar 2016

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice N.K.Sudhindrarao R.S.A.No.70/2007

Section 100

17 of the Registration Act? 2. Can there be a declaration that the sale deed with respect to agricultural property in favour of a company is valid in the light of bar contained in Section 79(b) of Land Reforms Act? 3. Can there be a declaration that the sale deed with respect to property which has vested

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)

iii) Reporting of bogus production by units in these areas, whereas actual pr oduction takes place at other unit of same manufacturer in another part of the c ountry; iv) Purchase of inputs on non-duty paid invoice (invoices issued by traders) , even though goods are duty paid. The duty paid invoices are sold in the market to other manufacturers

The Commissioner of Income Tax V vs. M/s.Orchem Industries

ITTA/79/2007HC Telangana22 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

Section 29(2)

bogus or sham all factors are required to be taken into consideration and in this case from facts on record, it appears that the partnership is sham and it is used as a devise to protect the tenacy right. Regarding revisional jurisdiction, he has submitted that the powers of the revisional court though limited but if it is found from

M/S VAIBHAV vs. JOINT COMM. OF INCOME TAX RANGE 3 HYD

Appeal is allowed and the judgments and decrees passed by the

ITTA/58/2002HC Telangana14 Sept 2022

Bench: The Learned Trial Court) Was Allowed & The Judgment & Decree Dated 12.12.2000, Passed By Learned Senior Sub Judge, Kullu Was Set-Aside. (Parties Shall Hereinafter Be Referred To In

For Appellant: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Sr. Advocate with

bogus, as she never paid the 14 consideration for the sale though she admitted the execution of the sale deed before the Registrar. Her story that she was ignorant of the nature of the transaction, it was held, cannot be accepted as she had admitted the execution of the sale deed before the Registrar. 11. A Division Bench of this

Commissioner of Income tax-VI vs. M/s. Narpat Girji Constructions,

The appeal is allowed

ITTA/19/2015HC Telangana25 Mar 2015
Section 449Section 456Section 456(1)Section 456(2)Section 483

iii. Since its execution, respondent has been paying the paltry rent of Rs.1,250/- per month. The Company Court vide order dated 01.04.2004 ordered for winding up of Mysore Kirloskar Limited, pursuant to the petitioner in Company Petition No.166/2001. On 29.07.2011, the Official Liquidator filed an application in Company Application No.826/2011, seeking to declare the lease deed

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)

bogus complaint dated 12.10.1990 to B.M.C. authorities as defendant no.2 had filed affidavit dated 10.9.1990 in favour of one of the tenants, Smt. Vasanti B. Palan in Suit (ST) 647 of 1990. Defendant no.2, by his Advocates' letter dated 28.10.1990 had placed various facts on record. On 8.11.1990, B.M.C. authorities issued notice under section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation