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.

78 results for “bogus purchases”+ Carry Forward of Lossesclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,906Delhi471Kolkata356Ahmedabad234Jaipur174Chennai123Pune122Chandigarh116Surat102Bangalore78Hyderabad77Raipur68Nagpur62Cochin58Indore51Rajkot47Guwahati46Amritsar42Calcutta36Lucknow31Visakhapatnam29Cuttack20Allahabad11Jodhpur10Patna8Karnataka8Varanasi6Telangana5Agra4Ranchi3Orissa2SC2Dehradun1Jabalpur1Panaji1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1

Key Topics

Addition to Income66Section 153A53Section 143(3)40Disallowance40Section 13238Section 14822Section 153C20Section 14718Section 143(2)

M/S SCANIA COMMERCIAL VEHICLES INDIA PVT LTFD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-6(1)(1), BANGALORE

The Appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 261/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Kumar Jain, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 68Section 92C

loss of Rs. 306,57,86,824/- wherein after the direction of the Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel, the Ld. Assessing Officer retained three disallowance/additions as under:- a. Depreciation claim of Rs. 2,14,45,821/- pertaining to the new assets purchased on which depreciation is disallowed by the Assessing Officer as Assessee has not explained the source of purchase

O3 CAPITAL GLOBAL ADVISORY PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5(1)(2), BANGALORE

Showing 1–20 of 78 · Page 1 of 4

16
Section 1114
Natural Justice12
Reassessment10

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

ITA 931/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashanth, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

carried forward short term capital gain: - During the assessment year 46,24,960/- 2016-17 - During the assessment year 2017-18 88,24,482/- - During the assessment year 2018-19 48,42,665/- - During the assessment year 2019-20 2,60,32,644/- Total 4,43,24,751/- 5.14 Without prejudice, even for arguments sake if it is assumed that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE- 1(1)(1), BANGALORE, BMTC BUILDING, KORAMANGALA, BAQNGALORE vs. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED , BESCOM CORPORATE OFFICE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the ld

ITA 710/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S. Annamalai & Joseph Varghese, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250

carried forward business loss or unabsorbed deprecation as per the books of accounts of the Appellant prepared in accordance with the provisions of Companies Act, 2013 on the facts and circumstances of the case. 22. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified in taw in confirming the provisions to the extent a sum of Rs.86.07 crores

M/S. BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the ld

ITA 426/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S. Annamalai & Joseph Varghese, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250

carried forward business loss or unabsorbed deprecation as per the books of accounts of the Appellant prepared in accordance with the provisions of Companies Act, 2013 on the facts and circumstances of the case. 22. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not justified in taw in confirming the provisions to the extent a sum of Rs.86.07 crores

THE HAMLET,BANGALORE vs. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER-WARD-6(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 70/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. The Hamlet, No. 11, Kemwell House, The Income Tax Tumkur Road, Officer, Yeshwanthpur, Ward – 6(2)(4), Bangalore – 560 022. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaaft6690D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H.N. Kincha, Ca : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit - Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 24-08-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-11-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Order Dated 27.12.2022 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Passing The Appellate Order In The Manner Passed. The Appellate Order As Passed Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. In Any Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Should Have Quashed, The Order Passed By Assessing Officer Or Atleast Should Have Deleted The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Kincha, CA
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 234BSection 68

carried forward and interest levied thereon be deleted.” Page 4 of 52 M/s. The Hamlet, Bangalore 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: 2.1 Assessee is a firm doing its business of real estate and infrastructure development. For the year under consideration, it filed its return of income on 30.07.2012 declaring short term capital loss of Rs.1

BMM ISPAT LIMITED,HOSPET vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is dismissed

ITA 779/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V.Arvind, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234BSection 234DSection 68

forward losses of earlier years amounting to Rs.15,27,74,965 and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and consideration thereof, after affording the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and to put forth submissions / details in this regard which shall be duly considered. We hold and direct accordingly. Consequently, Ground No.9

INSTAKART SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, SPECIAL RANGE-3, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 544/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate and Ms. AnkitaFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT

forward delivery, cash-on-delivery/postpaid facility across serviceable pin codes, reverse logistics, and ERP integration with a specialized customer interface. Revenue was earned from providing these services to Flipkart, which is its group company, as well as from independent customers like Vector E-Commerce and Xerion Retail. 8.1 During AY 2016-17, the company was in its very first

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE, BANGALORE vs. AMRUTHA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1190/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar L, Advocate
Section 132Section 132(4)

forwarded to the AO for remand report. The AO in the remand report submitted that during the search proceedings at the premises of the assessee, it revealed various incriminating documents that the assessee through over billing and bogus invoicing has generated cash to meet the inadmissible expenses required in the field of contract business. The MD ITA No.978

AMRUTHA CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,SANJAYANAGAR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2) , BANGALORE

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 978/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Kumar L, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nandini Das, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)

forwarded to the AO for remand report. The AO in the remand report submitted that during the search proceedings at the premises of the assessee, it revealed various incriminating documents that the assessee through over billing and bogus invoicing has generated cash to meet the inadmissible expenses required in the field of contract business. The MD . ITA No.978

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE vs. M/S LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 2473/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

Section 143(2)

forward contract has been entered into is trading merchandise and working loan but the settlement is happening on currency. Therefore the amount of Rs. 16,47,303/- is treated as speculative loss u/s 43(5) r.w.s 73.” 4.6 Based on above, the Ld.AO passed assessment order under section 143(3) read with 144C(3) of the Act on 29/04/2013 making

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE vs. M/S. LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL (P) LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 2260/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

Section 143(2)

forward contract has been entered into is trading merchandise and working loan but the settlement is happening on currency. Therefore the amount of Rs. 16,47,303/- is treated as speculative loss u/s 43(5) r.w.s 73.” 4.6 Based on above, the Ld.AO passed assessment order under section 143(3) read with 144C(3) of the Act on 29/04/2013 making

M/S.LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 2334/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

Section 143(2)

forward contract has been entered into is trading merchandise and working loan but the settlement is happening on currency. Therefore the amount of Rs. 16,47,303/- is treated as speculative loss u/s 43(5) r.w.s 73.” 4.6 Based on above, the Ld.AO passed assessment order under section 143(3) read with 144C(3) of the Act on 29/04/2013 making

M/S LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 2826/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

Section 143(2)

forward contract has been entered into is trading merchandise and working loan but the settlement is happening on currency. Therefore the amount of Rs. 16,47,303/- is treated as speculative loss u/s 43(5) r.w.s 73.” 4.6 Based on above, the Ld.AO passed assessment order under section 143(3) read with 144C(3) of the Act on 29/04/2013 making

M/S.LIFESTYLE INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BANGALORE

In the results appeal filed by assessee for assessment year

ITA 2333/BANG/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillai

Section 143(2)

forward contract has been entered into is trading merchandise and working loan but the settlement is happening on currency. Therefore the amount of Rs. 16,47,303/- is treated as speculative loss u/s 43(5) r.w.s 73.” 4.6 Based on above, the Ld.AO passed assessment order under section 143(3) read with 144C(3) of the Act on 29/04/2013 making

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1600/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271

carried forward. By the same reason, the average cost should also have been allowed to the appellant. 10 That considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT has erred in upholding the disallowing the Short Term Capital Loss of Rs.1 17,76,40,000 in respect of the sale of shares of M/s Jupiter Capital Advisory Private Limited

EPSILON ADVISORS P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1608/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271

carried forward. By the same reason, the average cost should also have been allowed to the appellant. 10 That considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT has erred in upholding the disallowing the Short Term Capital Loss of Rs.1 17,76,40,000 in respect of the sale of shares of M/s Jupiter Capital Advisory Private Limited

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S EPSILON ADVISORS PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1569/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271

carried forward. By the same reason, the average cost should also have been allowed to the appellant. 10 That considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT has erred in upholding the disallowing the Short Term Capital Loss of Rs.1 17,76,40,000 in respect of the sale of shares of M/s Jupiter Capital Advisory Private Limited

EPSILON ADVISORS P. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. CIT, BANGALORE

In the result, penalty appeal of the assessee is allowed and penalty appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1607/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri S. Parthasarathi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Arvind, Standing Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271

carried forward. By the same reason, the average cost should also have been allowed to the appellant. 10 That considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT has erred in upholding the disallowing the Short Term Capital Loss of Rs.1 17,76,40,000 in respect of the sale of shares of M/s Jupiter Capital Advisory Private Limited

DRESS CODE ,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1650/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Sudheendra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Revenue
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234ASection 234BSection 69C

loss a/c, bank statement, GST return, month-wise purchase and sale invoices, e-waybills, etc. 4. The ld. AO noted that assessee has shown purchase of Rs.2,01,15,217 wherein assessee has purchased shirting and suiting from one, M/s. Manjunatha Marketing on 28.9.2017 for Rs.3,04,731. However, on verification of GST portal, it was found that this entity

M/S. PAUL RESORTS & HOTELS PVT LTD,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 840/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

loss account enclosed to the return of income filed by the assessee that the assessee was offering certain incomes under the head other income. The assessee was given a show cause letter on 11.12.2018 to bring to tax a sum of Rs.96,00,000/- and was asked to furnish the breakup of the other income. The assessee produced the breakup