PARTH BUILDCON,GANDHINAGAR vs. NFAC, DELHI, JURIS. AO-THE ACIT, CIRCLE-GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee. Since the Revenue had no opportunity to examine this evidence, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification and a fresh order.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which upheld the disallowance of purchases and expenses. The assessee argued that the disallowances were made without appreciating substantive evidence and that additional evidence was not considered. The assessee also raised grounds related to denial of proper opportunity of hearing during assessment.
What were the issues?
Whether the disallowances of purchases and expenses were justified? Whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of hearing during assessment? Whether additional evidence filed before the Tribunal should be considered?
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 133(6),Section 143(2),Section 142(1),Section 144B,Section 143(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd.897 citing159 ITR 78 · 1986 · SC
- CIT v. Victor Electrodes Ltd.101 citing20 Taxmann.com 680 · 2010 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-SHRI TR SENTHIL KUMAR
PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:
-
The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, vide order dated 24.03.2025 relevant to the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: The Ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal. He ought to have allowed the appeal fully in accordance with the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant before hi.
Disallowances of purchases / expenses Rs. 3,62,67,546/- Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 2–
The Ld. CIT(A) has erred i
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.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Vestige Marketing Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs DCIT Central Circle -05, DelhiDelhi20 Mar 2026Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Victor Electrodes Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by directing a lump-sum disallowance at 5% of the remaining disputed purchases, considering the business activity was admitted and books were not rejected. The Revenue's ...
- Vestige Marketing Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs DCIT, Central Circle-05, DelhiDelhi20 Mar 2026Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Victor Electrodes Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal observed that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of retracted statements. The CIT(A) had correctly deleted additions where suppliers provided supporting documents and filed returns, but confirmed a...
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs M/S Vestige Marketing Private Limited, DelhiDelhi20 Mar 2026Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Victor Electrodes Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal noted that additions cannot be made solely on confessional statements, especially when retracted. The CIT(A) had rightly deleted additions where suppliers provided documentary evidence and filed returns, but...
- Vestige Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs DCIT, Central Circle- 05, DelhiDelhi20 Mar 2026Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Victor Electrodes Ltd. and 1 other authority
The Tribunal observed that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of retracted statements or non-filing of returns by suppliers, especially when payments are made through banking channels and supporting documents a...
- ITO, Ward- 20(3), New Delhi vs Rmp Holding (P) Ltd., New DelhiDelhi9 Aug 2019Partly Allowed
Also relies on CIT v. Victor Electrodes Ltd. and 1 other authority
For assessment years 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09, the appeals were partly allowed. For assessment year 2010-11, the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, with the issue of share application money being remande...
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
