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.

10 results for “bogus purchases”+ Set Off of Lossesclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,085Delhi1,075Kolkata495Jaipur347Ahmedabad276Chennai274Surat162Bangalore161Chandigarh130Pune116Indore115Hyderabad114Nagpur73Rajkot67Cochin58Raipur58Calcutta50Guwahati47Lucknow46Visakhapatnam44Amritsar32Cuttack25Jodhpur24Patna15Allahabad14Karnataka10Telangana10Agra8Varanasi6Ranchi5SC4Dehradun4Panaji3Orissa2ASHOK BHAN DALVEER BHANDARI1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 26031Section 14817Revision u/s 2636Section 139(1)5Section 1535Section 54E5Section 1475Addition to Income3Section 39(1)

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

purchasers of the diamonds. Therefore, he treated the sale as unexplained credits in the assessee’s books and the sale proceeds of the diamonds are brought to tax as unexplained credits in the assessees books of accounts. The assessee’s claim for long term capital loss was disallowed, because the whole transactions of sale of diamonds is treated as fictitious

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

The appeals are allowed

ITA/5035/2009
2
Section 1002
Reassessment2
HC Karnataka
13 Aug 2012

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 153Section 260

purchasers of the diamonds. Therefore, he treated the sale as unexplained credits in the assessee’s books and the sale proceeds of the diamonds are brought to tax as unexplained credits in the assessees books of accounts. The assessee’s claim for long term capital loss was disallowed, because the whole transactions of sale of diamonds is treated as fictitious

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

purchasers of the diamonds. Therefore, he treated the sale as unexplained credits in the assessee’s books and the sale proceeds of the diamonds are brought to tax as unexplained credits in the assessees books of accounts. The assessee’s claim for long term capital loss was disallowed, because the whole transactions of sale of diamonds is treated as fictitious

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

purchasers of the diamonds. Therefore, he treated the sale as unexplained credits in the assessee’s books and the sale proceeds of the diamonds are brought to tax as unexplained credits in the assessees books of accounts. The assessee’s claim for long term capital loss was disallowed, because the whole transactions of sale of diamonds is treated as fictitious

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

purchasers of the diamonds. Therefore, he treated the sale as unexplained credits in the assessee’s books and the sale proceeds of the diamonds are brought to tax as unexplained credits in the assessees books of accounts. The assessee’s claim for long term capital loss was disallowed, because the whole transactions of sale of diamonds is treated as fictitious

M/S KARNATAKA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed and the impugned

ITA/11/2021HC Karnataka05 Feb 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

Section 36(1)Section 39(1)Section 66(1)Section 70

set off on tax paid on purchases will not qualify for rebate of ITC unless the tax collected on sales by the dealer [the Supplying Dealer] is remitted to the Government and holding that the appellant has not produced e- SUGAMs to establish that it is in receipt of goods purchased from the supplying dealer. On the disallowance

DR(SMT) SUJATHA RAMESH vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES

WP/54672/2015HC Karnataka24 Oct 2017

Bench: The Hon'Ble Dr.Justice Vineet Kothari

Section 119Section 119(2)(b)Section 119(2)(c)Section 54Section 54E

purchase of infrastructure bonds could not be made by her by issuing a cheque when another large value transaction for property advance was effected by her while remaining outside the country. 3. In view of the above and the fact that with the under the modern technology- enabled banking system, physical presence in India is not necessary, there does

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)

bogus. The immovable property was not utilized to earn paltry sums during the existence of the firm. The new partners were introduced and the old partners retired. This is a device adopted to transfer the immovable property. The incoming partners tried to evade capital gains tax as well as stamp duty and therefore, he held the capital gains

SRI C M MAHADEVA S/O SRI MANCHE GOWDA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal stands allowed

ITA/795/2009HC Karnataka24 Aug 2015

Bench: B.MANOHAR,VINEET SARAN

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 255(6)Section 260Section 69

SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT BANGALORE IN ITA NO.1357/BNG/2008 DATED 31.07.2009 AND CONFIRM THE ORDER DATED 29.8.2008 PASSED IN ITA NO.161/MYS/CIT(A)- V/07-08 BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), MYSORE. ® 2 THIS ITA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, VINEET SARAN J. DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT This is an appeal filed by the assessee

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS

Appeal is dismissed with costs

ITA/70/2007HC Karnataka26 Sept 2012

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice N.K.Sudhindrarao R.S.A.No.70/2007

Section 100

set aside and consequently, the suit of the plaintiff came to be decreed as prayed for declaring that the sale deed dated 16-2-1992 executed by 1st defendant –Mme Devika Rani Roerich in favour of plaintiff-Company is valid and binding and restraining the defendants from transferring the suit schedule property to any Trust, Society or any other person