SADBHAVNA ENTERPRISE,VAPI,GUJARAT vs. ITO WARD 7,VAPI, VAPI,GUJARAT
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to consider that the amounts in question were unsecured loans from M/s. VRB Capital Services India Private Limited, not purchases. The assessee provided bank statements and confirmation from the creditor, which indicated the nature of the transactions as loans and interest, with TDS deducted.
What were the facts?
The assessee's case was reopened based on information from a search action related to illegal online betting activities, where accommodation entries were used to route cash. The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 1,35,000/- for AY 2019-20 and Rs. 12,38,393/- for AY 2020-21 on account of accommodation entries and disallowance of interest, respectively. The CIT(A) upheld these additions.
What were the issues?
Whether the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were based on factual evidence, considering the nature of transactions as unsecured loans rather than accommodation entries.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 148A,Section 148,Section 144,Section 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI B.M. BIYANI
PER : SUCHITRA KAMBLE, J M: These appeals filed by the assessee are against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [in short “CIT(A)”] dated 17.12.2025 for the Assessment Years (in short “AY”) 2019-20 & 2020-21. 2. Firstly, we are taking up ITA No.181/SRT/2026 pertaining to A.Y. 2019-
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and fact by confirming addition of Rs.1,35,000/- made by learned assessing officer on account of accommodation entries.
ITA Nos.181 & 182/SRT/2026 Sadbhavna Enterprise
Your appellant prays and with your Honour's pre per
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 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026