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.

48 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 260clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai372Delhi219Karnataka109Jaipur70Kolkata54Bangalore48Calcutta34Chennai34Chandigarh27Surat21Ahmedabad20Hyderabad15Lucknow11Amritsar9Visakhapatnam8Nagpur7Indore7Raipur7Varanasi5Pune4Jodhpur3Rajkot3Cuttack2Telangana2Agra2SC2Jabalpur1Patna1Panaji1Bombay1Rajasthan1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 153A70Addition to Income41Section 13239Disallowance26Section 6822Section 14716Natural Justice16Section 132(1)(a)15Section 10(38)

HABIB AGRO INDUSTRIES ,MANDYA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 1330/BANG/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 153ASection 234Section 234A

260 ITR 80 and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. RAMAIAH REDDY reported in 339 ITR 210, the order passed is patently illegal and requires to be cancelled as void-ab-initio. 3. Without prejudice to above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the addition in respect of the fire wood purchases

Showing 1–20 of 48 · Page 1 of 3

15
Section 153C13
Section 4012
Search & Seizure12

HABIB AGRO INDUSTRIES,MANDYA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 1335/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 153ASection 234Section 234A

260 ITR 80 and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. RAMAIAH REDDY reported in 339 ITR 210, the order passed is patently illegal and requires to be cancelled as void-ab-initio. 3. Without prejudice to above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the addition in respect of the fire wood purchases

HABIB AGRO INDUSTRIES,MANDYA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 1334/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 153ASection 234Section 234A

260 ITR 80 and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. RAMAIAH REDDY reported in 339 ITR 210, the order passed is patently illegal and requires to be cancelled as void-ab-initio. 3. Without prejudice to above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the addition in respect of the fire wood purchases

HABIB AGRO INDUSTRIES ,MANDYA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 1333/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 153ASection 234Section 234A

260 ITR 80 and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. RAMAIAH REDDY reported in 339 ITR 210, the order passed is patently illegal and requires to be cancelled as void-ab-initio. 3. Without prejudice to above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the addition in respect of the fire wood purchases

HABIB AGRO INDUSTRIES ,MANDYA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 1332/BANG/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 153ASection 234Section 234A

260 ITR 80 and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. RAMAIAH REDDY reported in 339 ITR 210, the order passed is patently illegal and requires to be cancelled as void-ab-initio. 3. Without prejudice to above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the addition in respect of the fire wood purchases

HABIB AGRO INDUSTRIES ,MANDYA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MYSURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 1331/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 153ASection 234Section 234A

260 ITR 80 and the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of C. RAMAIAH REDDY reported in 339 ITR 210, the order passed is patently illegal and requires to be cancelled as void-ab-initio. 3. Without prejudice to above, the learned CIT[A] is not justified in upholding the addition in respect of the fire wood purchases

SRI C ANIL RAHASHEKAR ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1733/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri G.S Prashanth, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 153C

260 ITR 80. c) The learned authorities below have not discharged the burden of proving that there is a valid initiation of search under section 132(1)(a), (b) & (c) of the Act, its execution and its completion in accordance with law to render the proceedings valid under the facts and circumstances of the case. d) The learned

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 21/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

260 ITR 80. 2. The notice issued under section 153A of the Act is bad in law in as much as it does not contain whether the learned Assessing Officer proposes to assess or reassess the income of the appellant and consequently the notice issued under section 153A of the Act is invalid and the entire assessment proceedings

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 22/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

260 ITR 80. 2. The notice issued under section 153A of the Act is bad in law in as much as it does not contain whether the learned Assessing Officer proposes to assess or reassess the income of the appellant and consequently the notice issued under section 153A of the Act is invalid and the entire assessment proceedings

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 24/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. M. Mahesh, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

260 ITR 80. 2. The notice issued under section 153A of the Act is bad in law in as much as it does not contain whether the learned Assessing Officer proposes to assess or reassess the income of the appellant and consequently the notice issued under section 153A of the Act is invalid and the entire assessment proceedings

M/S SPR SPIRITS PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (3) , BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1660/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40A(3)

260 ITR [ST] 14 at page 219] that it is to overcome the difficulty leading to prolonged litigation inasmuch as “undisclosed income”, the legislature by Finance Act, 2003, decided to discard Chapter XIV-B provisions and introduced Sections 153A, 153B and 153C in the Act. Section 153A would contemplate that on initiation of proceedings under said Section 153A, the assessment/reassessment

M/S SPR SPIRITS PVT.LTD. ,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (3) , BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1659/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40A(3)

260 ITR [ST] 14 at page 219] that it is to overcome the difficulty leading to prolonged litigation inasmuch as “undisclosed income”, the legislature by Finance Act, 2003, decided to discard Chapter XIV-B provisions and introduced Sections 153A, 153B and 153C in the Act. Section 153A would contemplate that on initiation of proceedings under said Section 153A, the assessment/reassessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE vs. SHRI. T. NADAKRISHNA, BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 575/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40A(3)

260 ITR [ST] 14 at page 219] that it is to overcome the difficulty leading to prolonged litigation inasmuch as “undisclosed income”, the legislature by Finance Act, 2003, decided to discard Chapter XIV-B provisions and introduced Sections 153A, 153B and 153C in the Act. Section 153A would contemplate that on initiation of proceedings under said Section 153A, the assessment/reassessment

M/S SPR SPIRITS PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 (3), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1658/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40A(3)

260 ITR [ST] 14 at page 219] that it is to overcome the difficulty leading to prolonged litigation inasmuch as “undisclosed income”, the legislature by Finance Act, 2003, decided to discard Chapter XIV-B provisions and introduced Sections 153A, 153B and 153C in the Act. Section 153A would contemplate that on initiation of proceedings under said Section 153A, the assessment/reassessment

M/S SPR SPIRITS PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1 (3) , BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1661/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40A(3)

260 ITR [ST] 14 at page 219] that it is to overcome the difficulty leading to prolonged litigation inasmuch as “undisclosed income”, the legislature by Finance Act, 2003, decided to discard Chapter XIV-B provisions and introduced Sections 153A, 153B and 153C in the Act. Section 153A would contemplate that on initiation of proceedings under said Section 153A, the assessment/reassessment

M/S. SPR SPIRITS PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SPR GROUP HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED),BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3), BANGALORE

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 127/BANG/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 May 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 37(1)Section 40A(3)

260 ITR [ST] 14 at page 219] that it is to overcome the difficulty leading to prolonged litigation inasmuch as “undisclosed income”, the legislature by Finance Act, 2003, decided to discard Chapter XIV-B provisions and introduced Sections 153A, 153B and 153C in the Act. Section 153A would contemplate that on initiation of proceedings under said Section 153A, the assessment/reassessment

M/S. BARBEQUE NATION HOSPITALITY LTD,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 25/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Section 153ASection 250

260\nITR 80.\niii.\nThe learned assessing officer has not discharged the burden of\nproving that there is a valid search under section 132 (1) (a), (b)\n& (c) of the Act, and consequently the assumption of jurisdiction\nto make an assessment under section 153A of the Act is\nuntenable in law.\niv.\nThe learned assessing officer failed to appreciate

M/S B B JEWELLERS AND FINANCE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1619/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 68

260 ITR 80. e) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the intention of the amendment to Section 132(1) of the Act was to maintain confidentiality of the source of information and identity of the informer and not to ignore the procedures to be followed to conduct a valid search under the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S B B JEWELLERS AND FINANCE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1621/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 68

260 ITR 80. e) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the intention of the amendment to Section 132(1) of the Act was to maintain confidentiality of the source of information and identity of the informer and not to ignore the procedures to be followed to conduct a valid search under the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S B B JEWELLERS AND FINANCE PVT LTD ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the five appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1620/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri. G. S. Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132(1)(a)Section 132(2)Section 153ASection 68

260 ITR 80. e) The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the intention of the amendment to Section 132(1) of the Act was to maintain confidentiality of the source of information and identity of the informer and not to ignore the procedures to be followed to conduct a valid search under the facts and circumstances of the case