TBR INFRA PVT LTD,WEST GODAVARI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, RAJAHMUNDRY

ITA 739/VIZ/2025Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam13 August 2026AY 2023-246 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the assessee provided various evidences, the AO's claim of non-confirmation by the third parties requires further verification. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed contract payments to three parties, but the Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed them due to lack of response from parties or discrepancies. The CIT(A) sustained the addition, holding that documentary evidence without third-party confirmation is insufficient.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of contract payments is justified when the assessee has provided supporting documents, even if the third parties have not confirmed the transactions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE & SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE

PER MANJUNATHA G, AM: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] vide DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/10811293971(1) dated 29-Sep-2025 for the Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of ap

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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 133(6)

All 7,227 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →