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.

109 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 260clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai372Delhi219Karnataka109Jaipur75Kolkata54Bangalore48Calcutta34Chennai34Chandigarh27Surat21Ahmedabad20Pune17Hyderabad15Lucknow11Amritsar10Visakhapatnam8Indore8Nagpur7Raipur7Varanasi5Jodhpur3Rajkot3Cuttack2Telangana2Agra2SC2Jabalpur1Patna1Panaji1Bombay1Rajasthan1Allahabad1

Key Topics

Section 26035Section 14811Section 12A11Section 139(1)5Section 1535Revision u/s 2635Section 260A2

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S ANANTHA REFINERY PVT LTD

In the result, the appeal is disposed of

ITA/344/2014HC Karnataka04 Jan 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,V SRISHANANDA

Section 260Section 260A

260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 13.02.2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.1553/BANG/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, PRAYING TO: (I) FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED ABOVE. 2 (II) ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1553/BANG/2013 DATED 13/02/2014 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE

THE PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S SPR SPIRITS PVT LTD

The appeal is disposed of with liberty as prayed for by the learned

ITA/520/2022HC Karnataka01 Oct 2024

Bench: S.G.PANDIT,C.M. POONACHA

Showing 1–20 of 109 · Page 1 of 6

Section 260

Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 27.05.2022 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ Bench, Bengaluru (for short ‘Appellate Authority’) in ITA.No.1658/Bang/2018 for the assessment year 2008-09, raising the following substantial questions of law: 1. "Whether on the facts

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KRUPANIDHI EDUCATIONAL TRUST

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

ITA/47/2013HC Karnataka22 Oct 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 12ASection 13Section 260

260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 14.09.2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.86/BANG/2012, PRAYING TO I. FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN, II. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE - 2 - ORDER OF THE ITAT, BANGALORE IN ITA NO.86/BANG/2012 DATED 14.09.2012 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED

M/S SREE LAKSHMI SILKS vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal dated 26

ITA/179/2010HC Karnataka29 Jan 2020

Bench: It In Relation To Cash Credit Entries In The Books Of The Appellant On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case?

Section 143(1)Section 260Section 260A

260-A OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 26-2-2010 PASSED IN ITA NO.945/BNG/2009, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN. ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT BANGALORE IN ITA NO.945/BNG/2009, DATED 26-2-2010, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE

THE COMMR OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S DYNAMIC ENTERPRISE

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA/1414/2006HC Karnataka16 Sept 2013

Bench: This Bench.

Section 148Section 2(47)Section 45(4)

260-A OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ARISING OUT OR ORDER DATED 02.03.2006 PASSED IN ITA No.1295/BANG/2004, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995- 1996, PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTITAL QUESTION OF LAW STATED THEREIN, ETC. THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, N.KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

ITA/5038/2009HC Karnataka13 Aug 2012

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 153Section 260

260 A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, AGAINST ORDER DTD:26-06-2009 PASSED IN ITA NO.747/BNG/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH 'B', ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEES. These appeals coming on for final disposal this day, N.Kumar J., delivered the following

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

ITA/5034/2009HC Karnataka13 Aug 2012

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 153Section 260

260 A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, AGAINST ORDER DTD:26-06-2009 PASSED IN ITA NO.747/BNG/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH 'B', ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEES. These appeals coming on for final disposal this day, N.Kumar J., delivered the following

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA (HUF)

The appeals are allowed

ITA/5036/2009HC Karnataka13 Aug 2012

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 153Section 260

260 A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, AGAINST ORDER DTD:26-06-2009 PASSED IN ITA NO.747/BNG/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH 'B', ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEES. These appeals coming on for final disposal this day, N.Kumar J., delivered the following

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.MADHAVA, M/S BELLARY STEEL ROLING MILLS,

The appeals are allowed

ITA/5035/2009HC Karnataka13 Aug 2012

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 153Section 260

260 A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, AGAINST ORDER DTD:26-06-2009 PASSED IN ITA NO.747/BNG/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH 'B', ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEES. These appeals coming on for final disposal this day, N.Kumar J., delivered the following

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. S.PARVATHI MADHAVA

The appeals are allowed

ITA/5037/2009HC Karnataka13 Aug 2012

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 153Section 260

260 A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, AGAINST ORDER DTD:26-06-2009 PASSED IN ITA NO.747/BNG/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH 'B', ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEES. These appeals coming on for final disposal this day, N.Kumar J., delivered the following

MR C V MANJUNATHA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/235/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

RAJAPPA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/50955/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

SRI B S PATIL vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/23435/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

RAMA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/27625/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

BORALINGAIAH vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/33339/2018HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

SRI. GURUPRASAD vs. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

WP/8176/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

S B JAGADEESH vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/51160/2017HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

SMT. V.KRISHNAMMA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/36324/2017HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

SRI SANTOSH A SHETTY vs. THE STATE OF KARANTAKA

WP/29668/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER

P. D. PONNAPPA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/12975/2019HC Karnataka19 Jan 2021

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,B.A.PATIL

SECTIONS 2, 7, 11, 20 OF THE KARNATAKA LAND GRABBING AND PROHIBITION ACT OF 2011 AS VOID, ARBITRARY, UNJUST AS THEY ARE VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. IN W.P. NO.22817/2018: BETWEEN: SRI. MANJUNATHA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS S/O LATE GOVINDAPPA R/AT H. THIMMAPURA VILLAGE 122 BELENHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. ...PETITIONER