M/S PODDAR RUBBER INDUSTRIES,GUWAHATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, GUWAHATI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the statements from the broker's director and accountant were not incriminating against the assessee, did not specifically mention F&O transactions, and lacked corroboration. The AO failed to establish a nexus between the assessee's transactions and the alleged bogus activities.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed a loss of Rs. 29,65,952/- from Future & Options (F&O) trading. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this loss, treating it as bogus, based on statements from a broker's director and accountant who admitted to facilitating bogus long-term capital gains/losses through 'jamakharchi' companies.
What were the issues?
Whether the loss claimed from F&O transactions can be disallowed solely based on statements recorded under Section 133A from third parties without establishing a direct link to the assessee's transactions or without providing an opportunity for cross-examination.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son581 citing352 ITR 480 · 2013 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GAUHATI BENCH, “VIRTUAL
Before: Shri A. T. Varkey, JM]
This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A), Guwahati-2, dated 31-01-2020 for assessment year 2014-15. 2. The only ground of appeal raised by the assessee is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.29,65,952/- made by the AO on account of loss claimed by the assessee in Future & Options (in short ‘F&O’).
Brief facts of the case as noted by the AO are that the assessee has debited loss on account of transaction in Stock Exchange of F&O to the tune of Rs.29,65,952/-. According to the AO, from the details furnished by the assessee it could be seen that the F&O transactions were carried out by the assessee
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 133A
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Amr Infrastructures, Hyderabad vs DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), HyderabadITA 818/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shri Vikaskumar Macwan, Nadiad vs Dc/ACIT Central Circle 3, VadodaraITA 2022/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Puspanjali Bhuyan vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S A2Z Infra Engineering LTD vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
