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.

136 results for “bogus purchases”+ Exemptionclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,496Delhi768Kolkata499Chennai314Jaipur246Ahmedabad235Bangalore136Pune122Indore120Chandigarh108Hyderabad104Karnataka104Cochin57Lucknow53Surat45Cuttack43Calcutta42Rajkot40Nagpur36Raipur35Guwahati32Visakhapatnam20Ranchi20Amritsar19Patna18Jodhpur11Agra11Varanasi5SC3Panaji3Dehradun2Telangana2Gauhati1ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 6876Addition to Income74Section 153A60Section 12A53Section 10(38)46Section 14845Disallowance39Section 13235Exemption35Section 132(4)

BYSANI ADINARAYAGUPTHA SRINATH,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years

ITA 402/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

bogus transactions. Sales cannot take place without purchases, and reconciliation of stock showed that no part of purchases could be treated as unexplained. The allegation that 25% of cash purchases were invested in jewellery or cash loans was also incorrect. No such assets were found in the search, and the value of seized jewellery was much lower than the disallowance

Showing 1–20 of 136 · Page 1 of 7

32
Long Term Capital Gains27
Natural Justice27

BYSANI SRINATH MAMATHA,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for Assessment Years

ITA 407/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

bogus transactions. Sales cannot take place without purchases, and reconciliation of stock showed that no part of purchases could be treated as unexplained. The allegation that 25% of cash purchases were invested in jewellery or cash loans was also incorrect. No such assets were found in the search, and the value of seized jewellery was much lower than the disallowance

BYSANI ADINARAYAGUPATHA SRINATH,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 404/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

bogus\ntransactions. Sales cannot take place without purchases, and\nreconciliation of stock showed that no part of purchases could be treated\nas unexplained. The allegation that 25% of cash purchases were\ninvested in jewellery or cash loans was also incorrect. No such assets\nwere found in the search, and the value of seized jewellery was much\nlower than the disallowance

BYSANI SRINATH MAMATHA,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 406/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

bogus\ntransactions. Sales cannot take place without purchases, and\nreconciliation of stock showed that no part of purchases could be treated\nas unexplained. The allegation that 25% of cash purchases were\ninvested in jewellery or cash loans was also incorrect. No such assets\nwere found in the search, and the value of seized jewellery was much\nlower than the disallowance

DCIT, GULBARGA vs. M/S JUPITERBIOSCIENCE LTD.,, BIDAR

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 628/BANG/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

purchase of fixed assets to the extent was bogus and therefore the opening written down value (wdv) of the assets on which depreciation was claimed by the Assessee in AY 2004-05 on the same item of machinery had to be reduced and as a consequence ITA Nos. 1232/Bang/2005, 990/Bang/2008, 627, 628, 950, 951/Bang/2009, C.O. Nos.6 to 10-Bang

ACIT, GULBARGA vs. M/S. JUPITER BIOSCIENCE LTD.,, BIDAR

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1232/BANG/2005[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

purchase of fixed assets to the extent was bogus and therefore the opening written down value (wdv) of the assets on which depreciation was claimed by the Assessee in AY 2004-05 on the same item of machinery had to be reduced and as a consequence ITA Nos. 1232/Bang/2005, 990/Bang/2008, 627, 628, 950, 951/Bang/2009, C.O. Nos.6 to 10-Bang

DCIT, GULBARGA vs. M/S JUPITER BIOSCIENCE LTD.,, BIDAR

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 950/BANG/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

purchase of fixed assets to the extent was bogus and therefore the opening written down value (wdv) of the assets on which depreciation was claimed by the Assessee in AY 2004-05 on the same item of machinery had to be reduced and as a consequence ITA Nos. 1232/Bang/2005, 990/Bang/2008, 627, 628, 950, 951/Bang/2009, C.O. Nos.6 to 10-Bang

DCIT, GULBARGA vs. M/S JUPITER BIOSCIENCE LTD.,, BIDAR

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 990/BANG/2008[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

purchase of fixed assets to the extent was bogus and therefore the opening written down value (wdv) of the assets on which depreciation was claimed by the Assessee in AY 2004-05 on the same item of machinery had to be reduced and as a consequence ITA Nos. 1232/Bang/2005, 990/Bang/2008, 627, 628, 950, 951/Bang/2009, C.O. Nos.6 to 10-Bang

DCIT, GULBARGA vs. M/S JUPITERBIOSCIENCE LTD.,, BIDAR

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 627/BANG/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

purchase of fixed assets to the extent was bogus and therefore the opening written down value (wdv) of the assets on which depreciation was claimed by the Assessee in AY 2004-05 on the same item of machinery had to be reduced and as a consequence ITA Nos. 1232/Bang/2005, 990/Bang/2008, 627, 628, 950, 951/Bang/2009, C.O. Nos.6 to 10-Bang

DCIT, GULBARGA vs. M/S JUPITER BIOSCIENCE LTD.,, BIDAR

In the result, appeal by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 951/BANG/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jan 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanand Shri B. R. Baskaran

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumeer Kumar Singh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 271(1)Section 35(1)(iv)Section 35(2)

purchase of fixed assets to the extent was bogus and therefore the opening written down value (wdv) of the assets on which depreciation was claimed by the Assessee in AY 2004-05 on the same item of machinery had to be reduced and as a consequence ITA Nos. 1232/Bang/2005, 990/Bang/2008, 627, 628, 950, 951/Bang/2009, C.O. Nos.6 to 10-Bang

BYSANI SRINATH MAMATHA,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 410/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

bogus\ntransactions. Sales cannot take place without purchases, and\nreconciliation of stock showed that no part of purchases could be treated\nas unexplained. The allegation that 25% of cash purchases were\ninvested in jewellery or cash loans was also incorrect. No such assets\nwere found in the search, and the value of seized jewellery was much\nlower than the disallowance

BYSANI ADINARAYAGUPTHA SRINATH,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 401/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2015-16
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

bogus\ntransactions. Sales cannot take place without purchases, and\nreconciliation of stock showed that no part of purchases could be treated\nas unexplained. The allegation that 25% of cash purchases were\ninvested in jewellery or cash loans was also incorrect. No such assets\nwere found in the search, and the value of seized jewellery was much\nlower than the disallowance

BYSANI SRINATH MAMATHA,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 408/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CA &For Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

bogus\ntransactions. Sales cannot take place without purchases, and\nreconciliation of stock showed that no part of purchases could be treated\nas unexplained. The allegation that 25% of cash purchases were\ninvested in jewellery or cash loans was also incorrect. No such assets\nwere found in the search, and the value of seized jewellery was much\nlower than the disallowance

BYSANI ADINARAYAGUPTHA SRINATH,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 399/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2013-14
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

bogus\ntransactions. Sales cannot take place without purchases, and\nreconciliation of stock showed that no part of purchases could be treated\nas unexplained. The allegation that 25% of cash purchases were\ninvested in jewellery or cash loans was also incorrect. No such assets\nwere found in the search, and the value of seized jewellery was much\nlower than the disallowance

BYSANI ADINARAYAGUPTHA SRINATH,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD), CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 400/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2014-15
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

bogus\ntransactions. Sales cannot take place without purchases, and\nreconciliation of stock showed that no part of purchases could be treated\nas unexplained. The allegation that 25% of cash purchases were\ninvested in jewellery or cash loans was also incorrect. No such assets\nwere found in the search, and the value of seized jewellery was much\nlower than the disallowance

BYSANI SRINATH MAMATHA,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 409/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

bogus\ntransactions. Sales cannot take place without purchases, and\nreconciliation of stock showed that no part of purchases could be treated\nas unexplained. The allegation that 25% of cash purchases were\ninvested in jewellery or cash loans was also incorrect. No such assets\nwere found in the search, and the value of seized jewellery was much\nlower than the disallowance

BYSANI SRINATH MAMATHA,BENGALURU vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

ITA 405/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2013-14
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

bogus\ntransactions. Sales cannot take place without purchases, and\nreconciliation of stock showed that no part of purchases could be treated\nas unexplained. The allegation that 25% of cash purchases were\ninvested in jewellery or cash loans was also incorrect. No such assets\nwere found in the search, and the value of seized jewellery was much\nlower than the disallowance

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BANGALORE

ITA 2106/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2015-16
Section 12Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

purchase of\nland in their individual capacity and advances to related entities.\nThere was bogus expenditure debited by the trust for generation of\ncash through bogus billing and invoices including unaccounted and\nunexplained cash transactions across several years.\n05. Based on the case of assessee selected for scrutiny and as per second\nproviso to section 143(3) reference was sent

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BENGALURU

ITA 2109/BANG/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2022-23
For Appellant: Shri Vijaya Mehta, CA & Shri Avinash Mallya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 12Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

purchase of\nland in their individual capacity and advances to related entities.\nThere was bogus expenditure debited by the trust for generation of\ncash through bogus billing and invoices including unaccounted and\nunexplained cash transactions across several years.\n05. Based on the case of assessee selected for scrutiny and as per second\nproviso to section 143(3) reference was sent

M/S. RUKMINI EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST ,BENGALURU vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL , BENGALURU

ITA 2107/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Vijaya Mehta, CA & Shri Avinash Mallya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 12Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

purchase of\nland in their individual capacity and advances to related entities.\nThere was bogus expenditure debited by the trust for generation of\ncash through bogus billing and invoices including unaccounted and\nunexplained cash transactions across several years.\n05. Based on the case of assessee selected for scrutiny and as per second\nproviso to section 143(3) reference was sent