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 39(1)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,519Delhi1,183Jaipur329Kolkata297Chennai252Bangalore201Ahmedabad192Surat127Chandigarh120Karnataka115Hyderabad113Indore93Pune79Cochin59Amritsar58Rajkot55Raipur49Nagpur43Visakhapatnam40Calcutta38Guwahati37Lucknow34Cuttack28Allahabad28Jodhpur26Agra25Telangana10Patna7Varanasi7Panaji5Ranchi4Dehradun3Jabalpur2SC2

Key Topics

Addition to Income4Section 13(1)(a)3Section 1083Revision u/s 2633Section 672Section 13(1)(b)2Section 1002Section 5A2Section 3

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

2
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)

Section 5A (1) of the Act of 1944, is invested wit h the power to curtail the concessions by modified notifications, but nonetheles s such notifications should be in public interest. The Supreme Court, in Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd (supra) has laid down that promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine and yielded when equity so requires. When

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

purchaser or encumbrancer in good faith and for valuable consideration, if made within a period of one year before the presentation of a petition for winding up shall be void against the liquidator. 40. Section 531 is not in the respect of void transactions which are mentioned in Section 531A. The transactions in Section 531 are a distinct category other

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

bogus and a collusive job of K.T. Bhagath, the Managing Director of the K.T.Plantations and R.Devdas and Jude Devdas. The agreements to sell and deed of sale were vitiated by fraud and were unenforceable in die eye of law. This defendant reiterated that she has not handed over possession of the suit schedule property to respondent No. 1 and that

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-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

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

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

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 as per Form 8 B Bills are bogus or non-existent. All 6 dealers/assessees

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