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.

3 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 73clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,275Delhi766Jaipur244Chennai193Kolkata191Ahmedabad183Surat145Bangalore124Karnataka102Chandigarh88Hyderabad82Indore76Pune75Cochin59Rajkot42Amritsar38Calcutta36Raipur35Nagpur33Visakhapatnam28Lucknow27Guwahati25Cuttack21Jodhpur19Allahabad5Agra3Jabalpur3Dehradun3Telangana3Panaji2Ranchi1Patna1Varanasi1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 13(1)(a)3Section 1083Addition to Income3Section 13(1)(b)2Section 1002Section 5A2Section 32

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 purchase to maximize payment of duty in cash. In fact, when other units in the country avails CENVAT Credit o f say 68% of total duty (32% in PLA), there cannot be any plausible reasons to a vail credit to say 24% (76% in PLA) by units in these areas. This analysis clear ly brings out a fact that

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

Appeal is dismissed with costs

ITTA/70/2007HC Telangana23 Mar 2016

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

Bench:
Section 100

Sections 73, 74 and 75 49 of the Indian Registration Act, indicate the formalities. 49. When the execution is denied by the seller after completing formalities of execution, the Sub- Registrar would get authority to admit the execution. The purchaser has a right to present the document for compulsory registration. In this case, it was not the case of refusing

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