PARESH VANITLAL SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 15(1)(4), MUMBAI
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in wholesale metal business, faced additions for alleged bogus purchases and MVAT claims. Notices to purchase parties were returned unserved, and the assessee failed to provide supporting documents.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for transport charges was not warranted as the recipient had disclosed income and provided transporter's PAN. The issue of MVAT claim was restored to the Assessing Officer for factual verification.
What were the issues?
Whether disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is justified for procedural non-compliance when substantive conditions are met, and whether MVAT claimed as expenditure requires further verification to avoid double claim.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 69C,Section 43B,Section 194C(6),Section 194C(7),Section 40(a)(ia)
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.
More judgments on Section 147
- Nohar Yadav, Mandir Hasoud, Teh. Arang vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 1(2), Raipur…ITA 640/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Nohar Yadav, Mandir Hasoud, Teh. Arang vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 1(2), Raipur…ITA 639/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Nohar Yadav, Mandir Hasoud, Teh. Arang vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 1(2), Raipur…ITA 638/RPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Kishorbhai C Bhagtani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1)(1), RajkotITA 999/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Malhar Nitin Bhuptani, Rajkotq vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 1054/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Chandan Patra, Bbsr vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 7 Oct 2026
- M/S Corbett Kyari Jungle Resort vs. The State Tax OfficerUttarakhand · 6 Oct 2026
- M/S N B Enterprises vs. The Assistant CommissionerUttarakhand · 6 Oct 2026
- Sumit Bhoora vs. M/ S Aadharshila Developers PVT LTD.Chhattisgarh · 6 Oct 2026
- Jayesh Patel vs. M/S Aasharshila Developers PVT LTD.Chhattisgarh · 6 Oct 2026