PARESH VANITLAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 15(1), MUMBAI
Facts
The assessee, engaged in wholesale metal business, faced additions for alleged bogus purchases and MVAT claims. Notices to suppliers were returned unserved, and the assessee failed to provide supporting documents for purchases and MVAT payments.
Held
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for transport charges was not warranted as substantive conditions were met, despite procedural lapses. The issue of MVAT claim was restored to the Assessing Officer for factual verification.
Key Issues
Whether disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is justified for procedural non-compliance in TDS on transport charges, and whether MVAT claims constitute double claims or genuine business expenditure.
Sections Cited
Section 69C, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 133(6), Section 40(a)(ia), Section 194C(6), Section 194C(7), Section 43B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM
Per Bench: The captioned three appeals pertain to same assessee, arises against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, “the Ld. CIT(A)”], dated 31.03.2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11 and dated 02.06.2025 for AY 2011-12. The impugned orders, emanating from order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “the Act”] dated 26th March, 2013 and order u/s 147 dated 23rd March, 2016 for AY 2010-2011 and order u/s 143(3) d
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.
