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”+ Undisclosed Incomeclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,818Delhi1,330Jaipur439Kolkata429Chennai350Bangalore188Ahmedabad188Chandigarh141Hyderabad104Pune99Indore96Surat88Nagpur74Cochin62Raipur62Amritsar58Rajkot50Guwahati43Calcutta39Visakhapatnam38Lucknow35Allahabad34Patna34Cuttack33Jodhpur28Agra25Ranchi13Dehradun8Varanasi8Karnataka6Telangana5Jabalpur4SC3Orissa2Panaji2Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 26030Section 14810Section 139(1)5Section 1535Revision u/s 2635Section 40A(3)4

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

undisclosed income. The said search is illegal and without jurisdiction. Therefore, he wanted the entire proceedings be dropped. 7. Anyhow, he filed the very same return under protest. As he did not pay the taxes due on the income return filed earlier, he made payment of tax due and enclosed a challan showing the payment. As per the request

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

The appeals are allowed

ITA/5034/2009
HC Karnataka
13 Aug 2012

Bench: N.KUMAR,H.S.KEMPANNA

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 153Section 260

undisclosed income. The said search is illegal and without jurisdiction. Therefore, he wanted the entire proceedings be dropped. 7. Anyhow, he filed the very same return under protest. As he did not pay the taxes due on the income return filed earlier, he made payment of tax due and enclosed a challan showing the payment. As per the request

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

undisclosed income. The said search is illegal and without jurisdiction. Therefore, he wanted the entire proceedings be dropped. 7. Anyhow, he filed the very same return under protest. As he did not pay the taxes due on the income return filed earlier, he made payment of tax due and enclosed a challan showing the payment. As per the request

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

undisclosed income. The said search is illegal and without jurisdiction. Therefore, he wanted the entire proceedings be dropped. 7. Anyhow, he filed the very same return under protest. As he did not pay the taxes due on the income return filed earlier, he made payment of tax due and enclosed a challan showing the payment. As per the request

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

undisclosed income. The said search is illegal and without jurisdiction. Therefore, he wanted the entire proceedings be dropped. 7. Anyhow, he filed the very same return under protest. As he did not pay the taxes due on the income return filed earlier, he made payment of tax due and enclosed a challan showing the payment. As per the request

M/S.M K AGROTECH PRIVATE LTD vs. THE ADDL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

The appeal is allowed

ITA/83/2010HC Karnataka29 Nov 2018

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice Ravi Malimath

Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 40ASection 40A(3)Section 6

bogus. However, it upheld the payments made to Challakere parties, wherein the total purchases for all three parties amounted to Rs.1,36,57,416/-. Questioning the same, an appeal was filed before the Tribunal, which was dismissed. Hence, this appeal. 2. By the order dated 12-4-2010, the appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial question