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 250(4)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,499Delhi661Kolkata336Jaipur266Ahmedabad172Chennai154Bangalore128Chandigarh101Karnataka101Raipur91Amritsar91Surat65Indore59Hyderabad58Cochin58Rajkot49Nagpur48Pune45Guwahati42Calcutta35Lucknow28Cuttack24Allahabad22Patna19Agra14Jodhpur11Dehradun10Visakhapatnam9Ranchi9Varanasi7Telangana6Jabalpur4Panaji3SC1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 1486Section 142(1)2Addition to Income2

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

4 amount of fictitious sale of shares, which had been held to be 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

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III, vs. M/S V.J.Equipment Limited,

ITTA/305/2008HC Telangana02 Feb 2012

Bench: Charging The Interest U/S 234B & 234C Of The It Act?” 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Firm Is Engaged In The Business Of Precious & Semi Precious Stones & It Is A 100% Exporter. During The

Section 145(3)Section 234BSection 69C

4. He further contended that the Tribunal on the statement of Mr. M.P. Sharma who was power of attorney holder Vinayak Overseas has reversed the finding of A.O and CIT (A). He also relied on decisions of High Courts in case of bogus purchases and contended that the judgment of Vijay Proteins Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Leave

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

bogus loss, it is  a speculative one. 13. It has been observed by the Assessing Officer  that the sale of shares appeared to be effected  without taking actual delivery. In Short, when the  shares were stated to have been sold i.e. the date  of selling, the assessee was not in possession of  these shares. But once a person is accepted

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

ITTA/211/2008HC Telangana23 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

bogus loss, it is  a speculative one. 13. It has been observed by the Assessing Officer  that the sale of shares appeared to be effected  without taking actual delivery. In Short, when the  shares were stated to have been sold i.e. the date  of selling, the assessee was not in possession of  these shares. But once a person is accepted

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

bogus loss, it is  a speculative one. 13. It has been observed by the Assessing Officer  that the sale of shares appeared to be effected  without taking actual delivery. In Short, when the  shares were stated to have been sold i.e. the date  of selling, the assessee was not in possession of  these shares. But once a person is accepted

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

purchase the same. The said application has been dismissed by this Court on 30th September 2008. Being aggrieved by the same, OSA 27/2008 was filed by the applicant-society and the same was also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 28th January 2009 observing as under: “Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere