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.

19 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 234Dclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai104Delhi60Ahmedabad33Bangalore19Jaipur8Chennai4Jodhpur3Kolkata3Pune2Surat2Chandigarh1Raipur1Rajkot1

Key Topics

Section 6831Section 153A27Section 14823Addition to Income18Section 234D17Section 4016Section 14416Section 69C16Section 143(3)11Disallowance

DINESH KUMAR SINGHI,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 is partly allowed

ITA 699/BANG/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2018AY 2005-06

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 10BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153ASection 154

section 132(4) of the Act. No specific request for cross examination was made by the assessee. xvi. The quarterly and annual performance report submitted to SEZ the assessee declared that the unit has commenced production from the EOU only since 30/5/2006. From the about is clear that EOU was not established till 30/5/2006 and not entitled for deduction under

10
Natural Justice10
Capital Gains8

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2374/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

234D and it is prayed that consequential relief may be granted in the interest of justice and oblige.” 11. From this Para 5 reproduced from the order of CIT(A), it is seen that this was the contention raised by assessee before CIT(A) that the AO has erred in completing the assessment u/s. 144 without following the prescribed procedure

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2376/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

234D and it is prayed that consequential relief may be granted in the interest of justice and oblige.” 11. From this Para 5 reproduced from the order of CIT(A), it is seen that this was the contention raised by assessee before CIT(A) that the AO has erred in completing the assessment u/s. 144 without following the prescribed procedure

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2375/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

234D and it is prayed that consequential relief may be granted in the interest of justice and oblige.” 11. From this Para 5 reproduced from the order of CIT(A), it is seen that this was the contention raised by assessee before CIT(A) that the AO has erred in completing the assessment u/s. 144 without following the prescribed procedure

LAXMIPAT DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2373/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

234D and it is prayed that consequential relief may be granted in the interest of justice and oblige.” 11. From this Para 5 reproduced from the order of CIT(A), it is seen that this was the contention raised by assessee before CIT(A) that the AO has erred in completing the assessment u/s. 144 without following the prescribed procedure

RANJITPURA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2010-11

ITA 1104/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2018AY 2010-11

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(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

purchase of shares by the assessee and his wife. The assessee was issued show cause notice proposing to treat share application money paid into four companies belonging to the assessee’s group to be treated as money introduced by the assessee. The assessee merely submitted that the entire transaction is taken place through cheque and at arms length price. xiii

VARSHA DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 507/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

234D of the Act. ITA Nos.507 to 510/Bang/2022 Varsha Dudheria, Bangalore Page 4 of 17 27. For the above and other grounds and reasons which may be submitted during the course of hearing of the appeal, the assessee requests that the appeal be allowed as prayed and justice be rendered.” 2. Facts of the case are that the assessee filed

VARSHA DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 508/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

234D of the Act. ITA Nos.507 to 510/Bang/2022 Varsha Dudheria, Bangalore Page 4 of 17 27. For the above and other grounds and reasons which may be submitted during the course of hearing of the appeal, the assessee requests that the appeal be allowed as prayed and justice be rendered.” 2. Facts of the case are that the assessee filed

VARSHA DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 509/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

234D of the Act. ITA Nos.507 to 510/Bang/2022 Varsha Dudheria, Bangalore Page 4 of 17 27. For the above and other grounds and reasons which may be submitted during the course of hearing of the appeal, the assessee requests that the appeal be allowed as prayed and justice be rendered.” 2. Facts of the case are that the assessee filed

VARSHA DUDHERIA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 510/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

234D of the Act. ITA Nos.507 to 510/Bang/2022 Varsha Dudheria, Bangalore Page 4 of 17 27. For the above and other grounds and reasons which may be submitted during the course of hearing of the appeal, the assessee requests that the appeal be allowed as prayed and justice be rendered.” 2. Facts of the case are that the assessee filed

M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LIMITED,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

ITA 772/BANG/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

purchase of property from Sri Ajith Kumar Rai relying on the erroneous initial declaration u/s.132[4] of the Act, made by Sri Mohiuddin, which has been explained by Sri Mohiuddin as incorrect subsequently that no such payment has been made, which has been substantiated by the examination of Sri Ajith Kumar Rai by the learned A.O. himself at the back

M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LIMITED,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

ITA 776/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

purchase of property from Sri Ajith Kumar Rai relying on the erroneous initial declaration u/s.132[4] of the Act, made by Sri Mohiuddin, which has been explained by Sri Mohiuddin as incorrect subsequently that no such payment has been made, which has been substantiated by the examination of Sri Ajith Kumar Rai by the learned A.O. himself at the back

M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LIMITED,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

ITA 773/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

purchase of property from Sri Ajith Kumar Rai relying on the erroneous initial declaration u/s.132[4] of the Act, made by Sri Mohiuddin, which has been explained by Sri Mohiuddin as incorrect subsequently that no such payment has been made, which has been substantiated by the examination of Sri Ajith Kumar Rai by the learned A.O. himself at the back

DCIT, MANGALORE vs. M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LTD, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

ITA 818/BANG/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

purchase of property from Sri Ajith Kumar Rai relying on the erroneous initial declaration u/s.132[4] of the Act, made by Sri Mohiuddin, which has been explained by Sri Mohiuddin as incorrect subsequently that no such payment has been made, which has been substantiated by the examination of Sri Ajith Kumar Rai by the learned A.O. himself at the back

M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LIMITED,MANGALORE vs. ACIT, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

ITA 774/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

purchase of property from Sri Ajith Kumar Rai relying on the erroneous initial declaration u/s.132[4] of the Act, made by Sri Mohiuddin, which has been explained by Sri Mohiuddin as incorrect subsequently that no such payment has been made, which has been substantiated by the examination of Sri Ajith Kumar Rai by the learned A.O. himself at the back

DCIT, MANGALORE vs. M/S DELTA INFRALOGISTICS WORLDWIDE LTD, MANGALORE

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for Assessment Years 2003-04 to 2008-

ITA 819/BANG/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazappeal Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Years

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. V. Aravind, Advocate
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 40

purchase of property from Sri Ajith Kumar Rai relying on the erroneous initial declaration u/s.132[4] of the Act, made by Sri Mohiuddin, which has been explained by Sri Mohiuddin as incorrect subsequently that no such payment has been made, which has been substantiated by the examination of Sri Ajith Kumar Rai by the learned A.O. himself at the back

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

234D is against the express provisions of the law. 20. For the above and other grounds and reasons which may be submitted during the course of hearing of the appeal, the assessee requests that the appeal be allowed as prayed and justice be rendered.” For Asst. Year 2009-10 1. That the order of the authorities below

JOINT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INDIA PVT LTD , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 831/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar S. K, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

purchase of software and not in relation to rendering of service. The learned CIT(A) and the AO have erred in not considering the Appellant's contentions that there was neither any enduring benefit nor new capital asset which was acquired by TI India pursuant to incurring of such expense. 9.3 The CIT(A) has erred

TEXAS INSTRUMENTS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed and the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 852/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri. Percy Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjay Kumar S. K, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80JSection 92C

purchase of software and not in relation to rendering of service. The learned CIT(A) and the AO have erred in not considering the Appellant's contentions that there was neither any enduring benefit nor new capital asset which was acquired by TI India pursuant to incurring of such expense. 9.3 The CIT(A) has erred