MUKESH C PARIKH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 24(2)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4640/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 August 2022AY 2010-119 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issues of bogus creditors, disallowance of purchases, and capital introduction to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after verifying the provided documents. The issue of Section 80C deduction was also remanded for verification.

What were the facts?

The assessee's return of income was assessed ex-parte under Section 144 due to non-compliance with notices. The Assessing Officer made several additions, which were partly confirmed and partly modified by the CIT(A). The assessee appealed these decisions.

What were the issues?

Whether additions made on account of bogus creditors, unexplained purchases, and capital introduction were justified, and the correctness of the Section 80C deduction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 133(6),Section 69C,Section 68,Section 69,Section 80C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

For Appellant: Shri M.N. Shah
For Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Hearing: 01.08.2022Pronounced: 12.08.2022

आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. संबंधधत आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / Concerned CIT धिभागीय प्रधतधनधध, आयकर अपीलीय अधधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file.

आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, सत्याधपत प्रधत //True Copy//

(Asst. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai

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 →