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.

10 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 144Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai155Delhi102Ahmedabad64Jaipur41Rajkot40Kolkata36Chandigarh28Raipur19Indore19Surat18Pune17Hyderabad15Bangalore10Guwahati5Amritsar5Agra5Chennai4Lucknow4Visakhapatnam3Dehradun3Jodhpur2Ranchi2Cochin2Nagpur1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Addition to Income9Section 1477Section 2507Section 143(3)7Section 69C6Section 142(1)5Section 695Section 44A5Section 271A5

SWAMY HOLAGUNDI,HUVINA HADAGALI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS, HOSPET

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1767/BANG/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19 Swamy Holagundi Prop: Raviteja Traders 7C/10, 3Rd Ward Ito Bangarappanagar Vs. Ward-1 & Tps Karnataka 583 219 Hospet Pan: Dwjps7047P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri V. Srinivasan, Advocate, A.R Respondent By : Sri Subramanian S., Jcit D.R. Date Of Hearing : 08.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.08.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 19.07.2024Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2-24-25/1066829871(1) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: -

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, Advocate, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian S., JCIT D.R
Section 147Section 250Section 69C

section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 15.03.2023, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 5. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC held that the finding of the AO that the purchases to the tune of Rs.8,07,30,850/- to be bogus

Bogus Purchases3
Disallowance3
Cash Deposit2

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

144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (`the Act') in the manner passed by him and the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as `CIT(A)'] has erred in confirming the said order. The said orders being bad in law are liable to be quashed. Grounds relating to addition under section

PRAKASH PRAVEEN KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 636/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Balram R Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 250Section 44ASection 69

section 143(2) of the Act was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, and it was served through e- filing account of the assessee on 28/09/2019, as well as an Prakash Praveen Kumar, Bangalore Page 3 of 7 intimation issue of notice was served through SMS alert on the registered mobile number to the assessee on 28/09/2019 and the assessee

LAKSHMANRAM BHEEMAJI PUROHIT,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(2)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 196/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 143(3)Section 44A

section under which the addition/ disallowance is made. With respect to the details of purchases, it was submitted that the supplier had GST No. and the address of supplier was provided. The assessee also provided the details of purchases. It was submitted that all these purchases have been made in cash. The assessee also objected that these are not bogus

SHRI. VIKRAM KOTHARI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-(3)(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 274/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore25 May 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2018-19 Shri. Vikram Kothari, The Income Tax Officer, No.33, K H Ranganatha Colony, Ward – 3(2)(1), Mysore Road, Vs. Bengaluru. Karnataka – 560 039. Pan : Ahlpk 1971 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Ravishankar S. V, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Gudimella Vp Pavan Kumar, Jcit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 25.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.05.2023

For Appellant: Shri. Ravishankar S. V, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69C

144B of the Act, making an addition of Rs.33,00,360/- under section 69C of the Act. The addition was on account of disallowance of purchases treating the same as bogus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) CIRCLE-1, BENGALURU vs. COSMOPOLIS EDUCATIONAL TRUST, BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 575/BANG/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Madhusudhan UA, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT
Section 11

purchase consideration of school EPS and remaining amount of Rs. 41,85,16,746/- was transferred or credited to corpus/capital found account. 6. In addition to the above, the assessee trust has received inter- trust funds of Rs. 20,22,96,029/- throughout the year from the schools . Page 3 of 24 run by M/s CET for construction its school

NANDI SAHAKARI SAKKARE KARKHANE NIYAMIT,VIJAYAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER APPEAL, VIJAYAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 447/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Sri. Chetan V Chougale & Sri Praveen P Ghali, CAFor Respondent: Sri. A. Sreenivasa Rao, CIT - DR
Section 115JSection 132ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

bogus companies as well as other cooperative societies. Hence, the assessee has to prove the genuineness of all major cash credits, in the light of new information that the assessee is part of channel to route unexplained cash into the banking system. The trail of cash from source to destination needs to be investigated, and brought to tax.” 3.2 Accordingly

NIKSHEP INFRA PROJECTS,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1602/BANG/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Nov 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2023-24

For Appellant: Shri Sukruth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 250Section 68

section 250 of the I.T. Act. 4). The learned CIT(A) erred in not considering that the Assessing officer had made arbitrary addition of the amount payable to Sub-contractors of Rs. 15,03,62,905 as Unexplained Cash Credits U/s 68 without considering the details furnished by the Appellant and without giving adequate opportunity. 5). The Learned

POONAM GUPTA ,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-5(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 793/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10Section 147Section 68

144B of the Page 2 of 8 Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] passed by the Assessment Centre, Delhi (the learned AO) on 30th May 2023 was dismissed. 2. The brief contention of the assessee as per grounds of appeal is that assessee is challenging the reopening of the assessment as well as the addition made by the learned

MAHENDRA KUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, BENGALURU

In the result, the revisionary order passed u/s

ITA 812/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

144B of the Act was also passed on 23.3.2022 wherein total income of the assessee was accepted at Rs.13,76,300 as per return of income as well as the original assessed income. Therefore, in the reassessment proceedings, there was no addition made. 8. Subsequently on examination of the record, the ld. PCIT noted that as per financials, assessee