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.

6 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 36(1)(va)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai45Ahmedabad38Delhi26Jaipur20Kolkata18Chandigarh12Hyderabad12Guwahati11Jodhpur9Raipur7Bangalore6Chennai4Indore3Surat2Lucknow2Cuttack1Pune1Allahabad1Agra1

Key Topics

Section 143(2)6Section 686Addition to Income6Transfer Pricing5

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)

bogus on surprises. 10.4 We therefore direct the Ld.AO to delete the addition in the hand of assessee. Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands allowed. Grounds alleged by Revenue are as under: “1. The Order of the Ld. CIT (A), in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, is opposed

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)

bogus on surprises. 10.4 We therefore direct the Ld.AO to delete the addition in the hand of assessee. Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands allowed. Grounds alleged by Revenue are as under: “1. The Order of the Ld. CIT (A), in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, is opposed

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)

bogus on surprises. 10.4 We therefore direct the Ld.AO to delete the addition in the hand of assessee. Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands allowed. Grounds alleged by Revenue are as under: “1. The Order of the Ld. CIT (A), in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, is opposed

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)

bogus on surprises. 10.4 We therefore direct the Ld.AO to delete the addition in the hand of assessee. Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands allowed. Grounds alleged by Revenue are as under: “1. The Order of the Ld. CIT (A), in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, is opposed

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)

bogus on surprises. 10.4 We therefore direct the Ld.AO to delete the addition in the hand of assessee. Accordingly this ground raised by assessee stands allowed. Grounds alleged by Revenue are as under: “1. The Order of the Ld. CIT (A), in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue, is opposed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE vs. AURA JEWELS, BANGALORE

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 684/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 68

1) r.ws 123 Section 36 & 72(a) of the KVAT Act dated 11.06.2018. When the authority under the KVAT Act accepts the tax Invoices without the address of the buyers, the Assessing Officer cannot dispute the same. It is not open for the Income Tax authorities to invoke the powers under other statutes. 6.7 The appellant has submitted that