BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

4 results for “bogus purchases”+ Section 144Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai155Delhi102Ahmedabad64Jaipur41Rajkot40Kolkata36Chandigarh28Raipur19Indore19Surat18Pune17Hyderabad15Bangalore10Guwahati5Amritsar5Agra5Chennai4Lucknow4Visakhapatnam3Dehradun3Jodhpur2Ranchi2Cochin2Nagpur1Jabalpur1

Key Topics

Section 1475Section 1484Addition to Income4Section 10(38)3Section 115B3Section 143(3)3Section 682Section 69C2Section 80I2

INCOME TAX OFFICER, LUCKNOW vs. RAJEEV KUMAR KAPOOR, LUCKNOW

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 424/LKW/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 1Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 69C

section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B dated 17.12.2022 and allowed the appeal of the assessee. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. Because on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in Law and in facts while deleting the addition of Rs. 88,16,120/- u/s 69C r.w.s 115BBE of the Income

Reassessment2
Penalty2
Limitation/Time-bar2

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LUCKNOW vs. SUDHANSHU TRIVEDI, LUCKNOW

ITA 418/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2015-16 The Acit V. Sudhanshu Trivedi Lucknow 21/1013, Sector 21 Indira Nagar, Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ackpt4164G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Amit Singh Chouhan, D.R. Respondent By: S/Shri Rajat Jain & Akshat Jain, Cas O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Amit Singh Chouhan, D.RFor Respondent: S/Shri Rajat Jain and Akshat Jain, CAs
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 149Section 271(1)(c)

bogus Long Term Capital Gain to beneficiaries, such shares of these listed companies were purchased by the companies of Rich Group, like M/s Horizon Portfolio Ltd. at a very high price and such purchases culminated into Long Term Capital Gains which were claimed as exempt under section 10(38) of the Act by the beneficiaries. The assessee was required

ACIT, RANGE-I, LUCKNOW vs. M/S APCO INFRATECH PVT. LTD.,, LUCKNOW

ITA 453/LKW/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow02 Apr 2025AY 2016-17
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 80I

section 144(2) of the Act,\nAssessing Officer is duty bound to record his/her dissatisfaction on correctness\nof claim of assessee before invoking the provision of section 144. As it is\nevident from language of section 144 as well as of rule 8D, recording of the\ndissatisfaction of Assessing officer as regard to correctness of claim of\nexpenditure made

RAGHAV AGARWAL (HUF),KANPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(3), KANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 275/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraraghav Agarwal (Huf) The Income Tax Officer V. 563, Muir Road, Cantt., Ward-1(1)(3) Kanpur-208004. Aayakar Bhawan, 16/69, Civil Lines, Kanpur- 208001. Pan:Aanhr2365C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Adv Respondent By: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 22 01 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 06 02 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 68Section 69C

bogus, only roving and fishing enquiry, incomplete, leading nowhere, there being no nexus between the material and the reasons recorded, far less any satisfaction of the AO, the entire proceedings initiated right from recording of reasons, issue of notice u/s 148 and reassessment thereafter is all without jurisdiction, the same be quashed. 3. Because the CIT(A) has failed