BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

5 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 56(2)(x)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai160Delhi93Jaipur52Chandigarh44Kolkata35Rajkot35Guwahati25Chennai23Ahmedabad19Jodhpur15Bangalore14Surat14Visakhapatnam11Nagpur10Lucknow10Raipur7Allahabad5Indore3Pune2Hyderabad2Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 153A8Section 1326Section 153A(1)(b)6Disallowance5Addition to Income5Section 143(1)3Section 36(1)3Section 271(1)(c)3Penalty

M/S KESARWANI ZARDA BHANDAR,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 379/ALLD/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 153A

section 145(3) of the act and once the said provision for rejection of account was not invoked then the addition made is unwarranted because for rejection of account invoking of provision of section 145(3) is a mandatory requirement. In this regard there are various decisions in support of the assessee including the decision of apex court and various

ACIT,, ALLAHABAD vs. KESARWANI ZARDA BHANDAR,, ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 12/ALLD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Jun 2025AY 2010-11

Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

3
Undisclosed Income3
Bogus Purchases2
Bench:
Section 153A

section 145(3) of the act and once the said provision for rejection of account was not invoked then the addition made is unwarranted because for rejection of account invoking of provision of section 145(3) is a mandatory requirement. In this regard there are various decisions in support of the assessee including the decision of apex court and various

KESARWANI & CO.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 389/ALLD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad29 Nov 2024AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Neel Jain, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)

56(Kar), to hold that the introduction of provisions of section 153A was to avoid litigation proliferating on the issue of, “undisclosed income” and if the same controversy was raised under the new provisions, the avowed purpose of bringing the new provisions would be forfeited. Thus, relying on the said judgment, he held that the ld. AO had to compute

KESARWANI & C0,,ALLAHABAD vs. JT CIT,, ALLAHABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 390/ALLD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad29 Nov 2024AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Neel Jain, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)

56(Kar), to hold that the introduction of provisions of section 153A was to avoid litigation proliferating on the issue of, “undisclosed income” and if the same controversy was raised under the new provisions, the avowed purpose of bringing the new provisions would be forfeited. Thus, relying on the said judgment, he held that the ld. AO had to compute

KESARWANI & C0.,ALLAHABAD vs. JT.CIT., ALLAHABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 392/ALLD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad29 Nov 2024AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Neel Jain, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)

56(Kar), to hold that the introduction of provisions of section 153A was to avoid litigation proliferating on the issue of, “undisclosed income” and if the same controversy was raised under the new provisions, the avowed purpose of bringing the new provisions would be forfeited. Thus, relying on the said judgment, he held that the ld. AO had to compute