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 96clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai960Delhi693Jaipur216Kolkata205Ahmedabad129Chennai117Karnataka107Chandigarh103Bangalore97Hyderabad83Surat62Cochin57Pune55Indore45Amritsar45Raipur42Calcutta34Rajkot27Lucknow23Visakhapatnam22Allahabad22Cuttack22Nagpur22Agra19Guwahati16Jodhpur15Jabalpur6Ranchi4Patna3Telangana3Dehradun2Rajasthan1Varanasi1Gauhati1

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

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

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)

purchase of the stamp paper of the agreement Exh.8. He deposed that the agreement dated 1.7.1970 bears his signature as witness no.1. He did not put the date below his signature. He signed the said document in 1970 at the suit premises on 1.7.1970. He denied that he had signed on it in 1980. On 1.7.1970, defendant no.1