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.

2 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 2(15)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai3,619Delhi2,108Kolkata654Jaipur576Ahmedabad446Chennai432Surat350Bangalore319Pune249Chandigarh228Hyderabad215Indore183Raipur133Karnataka124Rajkot108Amritsar107Nagpur91Visakhapatnam75Guwahati66Lucknow63Cochin63Cuttack57Calcutta45Agra42Jodhpur34Allahabad32Patna26Telangana14Ranchi12Dehradun8Jabalpur7Varanasi7SC6Panaji5Orissa2Gauhati2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Bombay1

Key Topics

Section 153A4Section 683Section 1322Search & Seizure2

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. vs. ROHIT KARAN JAIN

ITA/5/2023HC Gauhati12 Mar 2025

Bench: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153A

2. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble Tribunal was correct in law holding that the assessment for a Assessment Year is not abated when no assessment order was passed prior to passing order u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act?” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the sole respondent submitted Income

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR. vs. M/S GOLDSTONE CEMENTS LTD.

ITA/8/2022HC Gauhati
16 Dec 2024

Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE LANUSUNGKUM JAMIR,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

For Respondent: Dr. A. Saraf, Senior Advocate
Section 132Section 153ASection 260ASection 68

2(1), Kolkata. The shareholder had explained the strategic business objective behind infusion of share capital into the assessee company, for the reason that it was in the last leg of completion and commissioning of its cement plant. It is noted that the investment was made at the fair market value computed in terms of Rule 11UA of the Rules