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.

2 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 89clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai640Delhi289Jaipur120Chennai103Bangalore86Kolkata78Cochin58Ahmedabad56Hyderabad53Chandigarh47Indore41Rajkot35Raipur30Guwahati29Pune24Allahabad22Nagpur21Surat18Agra16Visakhapatnam16Lucknow15Jodhpur7Cuttack5Patna4Jabalpur3Amritsar2Panaji1

Key Topics

Section 1473Section 2633Section 145(3)2Section 143(3)2Addition to Income2

SHRI SHAM SUNDER AGGARWAL,KAPURTHALA vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 17/ASR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar27 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263Section 263o

bogus. I.T.A. No.17/Asr/2021 10 Assessment Year: 2011-12 viii) One more point, important and relevant to part with, is that the assessee in that year, had a fleet of about 25 trucks of his own, besides a tractor trolley, (as evident from the schedule of fixed assets enclosed at Page 82), deployed to lift the stocks of rice husk from

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, AMRITSAR vs. SHRI BHUPINDER SINGH. M/S NOVELTY SWEETS, AMRITSAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 196/ASR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 145(3)

bogus losses to be set off with the amount of surrendered income when it is a clear cut fact that accounts of the assessee were not maintained properly? 4. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by not appreciating that the assessee had incurred losses in the relevant year only