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.

10 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 35(1)(ii)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,299Delhi1,086Jaipur324Kolkata250Chennai240Ahmedabad189Bangalore166Chandigarh125Surat124Karnataka116Indore108Hyderabad100Pune71Amritsar65Rajkot59Cochin57Raipur53Nagpur43Guwahati36Calcutta35Lucknow29Visakhapatnam29Cuttack28Allahabad24Jodhpur20Agra10Telangana10Patna8Varanasi6Panaji5Ranchi3SC2Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Addition to Income4Section 13(1)(a)3Section 1083Section 13(1)(b)2Section 1002Section 5A2Section 32Revision u/s 2632

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

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

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)

ii. Industries located in the growth centers would also be given Capital Investm ent Subsidy at the rate of 15% of their investment in plant and machinery, subje ct to a maximum ceiling of Rs.30.0 lakhs.  3. Pursuant to the said policy, dated 08-07-1997, a notification is issued by the Central Government, under Section 5A (1) of Central

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

Section 100 CPC is directed against the common judgment and decree dated 7-10-2006 passed in R.A.Nos.33 and 35 of 2002 by the District and Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court –II, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, wherein appeal filed by the plaintiff -K.T. Plantations Private Limited in RA 3 No.33/2002 came to be allowed

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

ITTA/211/2008HC Telangana23 Mar 2016

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

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 assessee had sold the shares  prior in point of time without involving any  broker, and thereafter, purchased the shares  through   brokers.   The   Assessing   Officer  noticed that shares of Mysore Cement were not  sold   at   the   prevailing   market   price

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

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 assessee had sold the shares  prior in point of time without involving any  broker, and thereafter, purchased the shares  through   brokers.   The   Assessing   Officer  noticed that shares of Mysore Cement were not  sold   at   the   prevailing   market   price

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

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 assessee had sold the shares  prior in point of time without involving any  broker, and thereafter, purchased the shares  through   brokers.   The   Assessing   Officer  noticed that shares of Mysore Cement were not  sold   at   the   prevailing   market   price

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

35. Learned Senior Counsel has further submitted that the transfer of the assets by the lease deed was not per se void but void against the liquidator as mentioned in Section 531A of the Companies Act. In support of his submission the learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the following judgments i. RM. NL. Ramaswami Chettiar

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

The appeal stands dismissed

ITTA/577/2011HC Telangana28 Feb 2012

ii) The assessee has also claimed capital expenditure of Rs. 168600/- as a revenue expenditure. The capital expenditure pertains to fees paid to Registrar of Companies for increasing the authorized capital of the company. This fact was brought to the notice of the assessee vide order sheet entry dated 29.12.2009. No satisfactory reply has been filed. It is therefore, disallowed

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