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.

5 results for “reassessment”+ Bogus Purchasesclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai2,378Delhi995Jaipur370Kolkata280Ahmedabad194Bangalore192Pune191Chennai183Surat171Chandigarh122Hyderabad90Raipur64Amritsar63Rajkot60Indore59Guwahati49Agra32Lucknow32Nagpur31Visakhapatnam18Jodhpur17Patna14Ranchi13Dehradun12Calcutta8Karnataka5Allahabad3Cochin3Telangana3Jabalpur2Panaji2Orissa2Cuttack2SC1Gauhati1Punjab & Haryana1

Key Topics

Section 1488Section 1475Section 10(3)4Section 353Addition to Income3Survey u/s 133A3Section 39(1)2Section 2602Section 143(1)2

S N SIMHA vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

In the result there is no merit in this writ petition and the

WP/24840/2012HC Karnataka04 Oct 2012

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Anand Byrareddy Writ Petition No. 24840 Of 2012 (La-Kiadb) Between: 1. S.N.Simha, Aged About 73 Years, Son Of Late G.R.Swamy, 2. S.N.Yamuna Devi, Wife Of Sri. S.N.Simha, Aged About 66 Years, Both Are Proprietors M/S. Viswabandhu Press & Sree Bharathi Cottage Industries Company, No.16, 1St Cross, Cottonpet, Bangalore – 560 053. …Petitioners (By Shri. S.P.Shankar, Senior Advocate For Shri. K.L.Sreenivas, Advocate For M/S. K.N.L. Associates) And: 1. The State Of Karnataka, Represented By Its Secretary, Commerce & Industries

Section 28(4)Section 3

reassessed the properties to tax. And that there are several houses that have been constructed in the area. It is also stated that the Bangalore Development Authority has in its Revised Comprehensive Development Plan, 2011, indicated the land in the erstwhile Survey no. 58/1 and 59/1 for the formation of a residential layout and park. Therefore the same could

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

The appeal is allowed and the impugned

Reassessment2
Reopening of Assessment2
ITA/11/2021HC Karnataka05 Feb 2021

Bench: SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA,V SRISHANANDA

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

Reassessing Officer [the Prescribed Authority] has refused the ITC on both these grounds. 4. On the ITC claimed by the appellant for the supplies by the Supplying Dealer, the Prescribed Authority has recorded that in the absence of evidence to show that the Supplying Dealer has remitted the tax collected from it, the appellant will not be entitled

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S MAA COMMUNICATION BOZELL LTD

The appeal is allowed

ITA/523/2006HC Karnataka04 Sept 2013

Bench: B.MANOHAR,DILIP B.BHOSALE

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 260Section 260ASection 32Section 80M

bogus transactions and there is no transaction of 103 M.S.Rolls from Mumbai to Bellary. On the basis of the said survey report, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee calling upon them to furnish certain information as to why remedial action be not taken to disallow the depreciation on assets leased to BSAL. However, no reply has been

M/S ANS CONSTRUCTIONS LTD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL

WP/32896/2016HC Karnataka06 Dec 2019

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mrs.Justice S.Sujatha

Section 10(3)Section 35

reassessment orders as well as the - 7 - demand notices dated 17.05.2016 and 18.05.2016 relating to the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 respectively. Though the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent to allow the deduction of sub-contractor for the assessment year in question, the same is not pressed. Accordingly, the said prayer is dismissed

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

purchase of a residential house for Rs.10 lacs. 11. In response to the summons issued, the assessee had informed that the source of investment was from the HUF funds. The Assessing Officer does not state that such explanation was not correct, nor does he give reasons for not accepting such explanation given by the assessee in response to the summons