ITO-12(3)(1), MUMBAI., AAYAKAR BHAVAN vs. MYVISION ADVERTISING PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4859/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 March 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the Revenue's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of purchases and their source. Following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, the Tribunal reversed the order of the CIT(A) and restored the order of the AO.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) who had restricted additions made by the AO on account of bogus purchases. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the appeal proceeded ex-parte. The assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases and their source.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee discharged the onus to prove the genuineness of purchases and their source, and if the CIT(A) was justified in restricting the additions made by the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI

For Respondent: Shri Kiran Unavekar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 10.03.2025Pronounced: 11.03.2025

आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. ��थ� / The Respondent. 2. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / The CIT(A) 3. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / Concerned CIT 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु�बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�ािपत �ित //True Copy//

1.

उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु�बई मु�बई / ITAT, Mumbai मु�बई मु�बई

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →