“summons under section 131”

Search & SeizureSection 131Section 131379 judgments

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7842/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. M/S VESTIGE MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 7840/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE

VESTIGE MARKETING PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE -05 , DELHI

ITA 5521/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE

H K ISPAT PVT. LTD.,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

ITA 1392/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

Section 250Section 68

evidences submitted by the assessee, the Assessing Officer has not made any independent inquiries, such as issuing notices under Section 133(6) or summons under Section 131, to verify the contents of the confirmations. It is beyond our comprehension to believe that the Revenue can treat a transaction as "bogus ... produce directors of share applicant companies or Shri Anil Kumar who is brother of one of the directors. The AO could have issued summons under section 131 of the Income Tax Act. But instead of conducting any inquiry, he just draw certain inference for disbelieving the documents produced

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

ITA 1278/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

Section 250Section 68

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA, VADODARA vs. HK ISPAT PVT LTD, GODHRA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

ITA 1277/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

Section 250Section 68

SHILPA SHETTY KUNDRA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CC-5(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, in the above terms

ITA 996/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Dhawan, Adv. & RaviFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (SR. D.R.)

Section 133(6)Section 194CSection 250

beyond doubt. 9. It is pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer has failed to adopt the due process of law by issuing summons under section 131 of the Act for carrying out detailed investigation from the Donor, when the Assessing Officer was already having information regarding PAN details, complete ... prove creditworthiness of Donors and proving genuinity of gifts. At same time, revenue had not adopted due process of law by issuing summons under section 131 for carrying out detailed investigation from Donors, more particularly 9 Shilpa Shetty Kundra when Assessing Officer was already having information regarding PAN of Donors

MURAD KHETANI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-10(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1376/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 68

furnish the address and PAN details of the loan creditors. In response, the assessee did not 3 Murad Khetani submit any details. Therefore, summons under Section 131, dated 19.12.2018 were issued to the assessee. In response to the summons, the assessee filed a letter on 24.12.2018 requesting for an adjournment

JCIT, (OSD), CIRCLE 1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR vs. PLATINUM WORLD HOSPITALITY PRIVATE LIMITED, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

In the result appeal filed by the appellant is allowed

ITA 130/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.130/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Osd), Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 68

appellant specifically requested the Assessing Officer to summon the directors of both the appellant company and the investor company for verification. Nonetheless, no summons under section 131 na4gtiquiries under section 133(6) were issued by the Assessing Officer. The Supreme Court in CIT v. Orissa Corporation (159 ITR 78) held

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. LITTLESTAR SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 694/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 254Section 68

return\nacknowledgements, bank records, and audited financial statements\nof all subscriber companies. Despite the availability of such material,\nthe Assessing Officer issued summons under Section 131 to the\ndirectors of the subscriber companies and, upon their non-\nappearance, treated the entities as \"shell companies\" and added\n26.22 crore as unexplained ... Income Tax\nRetum acknowledgments, and audited financial statements of all fifteen subscriber\ncompanies. Notwithstanding the availability of this documentary evidence, the AO\nissued summons under Section 131 of the Act to the directors of these companies.\nWhen they failed to appear personally, the AO proceeded to brand these companies

DCIT, CC-1(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMBICA DHATU PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2389/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 250

Ambica Dhatu Pvt. Ltd. said subscription/share premium were received by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) also discussed the issue of summons under Section 131 of the Act to the Principal Officers of 9 investor companies and also replies received from the said companies though none appeared personally

MUHAMMED ARIF SHAIKH,VEJALPUR vs. ASST. UNIT. INCOME TAX DEPT. (PRESENT JURI. - ITO, WARD 3(3)(2) AHMEDABAD), VEJALPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1806/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 131Section 143Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

Sell (in Rs.) Buy (in Rs.) Sell (in Rs.) 1602003 496195 1752838 2901111 2.1. A summons under section 131 was issued seeking details of transactions made in crypto currency, its manner of accounting in his books of accounts and source of funds used for the transactions. However, no response

BALAJI BULLIONS AND COMMODITIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3755/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Jha, Adv

Section 133ASection 143(1)

Limited. The record reveals that summons Commodities (I) Private Limited. The record reveals that summons Commodities (I) Private Limited. The record reveals that summons under section 131 of under section 131 of the Act were issued to the said concern, the Act were issued to the said concern, pursuant

SHRI BHARAT NAVINCHANDRA GALA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 506/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 154

once the confirmations and requisite details were available on record, no adverse inference ought to have been drawn merely for non-compliance with summons under section 131. It was argued that the authorities below failed to properly appreciate the evidences furnished and rejected the claim on assumptions rather than

JCIT(OSD)-14(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. KUKREJA BUILDERS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is partly allowed in the above terms

ITA 2102/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit – 14(1)(1), Mumbai M/S. Kukreja Builders Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, 4 & 5Th Floor, Sai Mumbai - 400020 Commercial Building, Bks Vs. Devshi Marg., Govandi (E), Mumbai, Maharashtra– 400088 Pan: Aacck5040M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Ajay Singh & Shri Akshay Pawar, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr. D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.01.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2013-14. 2. In The Instant Case, The Assessee During The A.Y. Under Consideration Had Declared Its Total Income As Rs. 2,20,00,580/- By Filing Its Return Of Income, Which Was Initially Processed Under Section 143 Of The Act. 2 M/S. Kukreja Builders Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Singh & Shri AkshayFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (SR. D.R.)

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143Section 250Section 68

Assessing Officer, thereafter, in order to verify the creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactions, issued summons under Section 131 of the Act dated 15.03.2016 to the Principal Officers of the above mentioned parties for giving evidences and producing personally, the books of accounts and other documents, specified

ACIT CIRCLE-12, PUNE, PUNE vs. DHIRAJ BHAUSAHEB NIKAM, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1375/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle – 12, Pune Dhiraj Bhausaheb Nikam Vs. 515/516, Purva Plaza, Sadashiv Peth, Pune – 411030 Pan: Aahpn5137C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, Jcit (Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 10-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-02-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Kumar Kedia, JCIT

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(47)

hand, in our view, unjustifiably criticized the AO for not having confronted the assessee with the facts regarding return of some of the summons under Section 131 or not having given opportunity for the identity of all the share applicants to be properly established. The order sheet entries taken note

SAVERA COMMOTRADE PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 5(3),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1719/KOL/2025[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Feb 2026AY 2009-2010

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 68

{ "clean_text": "Page 1\nITA No. 1719/KOL/2025\nSavera Commotrade Private Limited; A.Y. 2009-10\nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

DCIT CIRCLE 2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA STEEL LIMITED, MUMBAI

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6471/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokardcit Circle-2(3)(1) Tata Steel Limited 552, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bombay House, 24, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Vs. Homi Mody Street, Mumbai-400 020 Fort, Mumbai, Gpo, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb1247M (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. Dr Assessee By Ms. Jasmin Amalasadvala, Ld. Ar Date Of Hearing 27.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.02.2026

Section 115JSection 131Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 250Section 268ASection 68

Learned CIT(A) failed to consider that the Assessing Officer, based on credible inputs from the Investigation Wing, undertook detailed inquiries including summons under section 131 and inquiry under section 133(6), which established the non-genuineness of the transactions, cancelation of VAT registration, and lack of real business activity

BHIMRAV MAHTARJI SONWANE,TAD PIMPALGAON vs. ITO WARD 1(5), AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3096/PUN/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Jan 2026AY 2022-2023

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3096/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Bhimrav Mahtarji Sonwane, V Income Tax Officer, At Post Tad Pimpalgaon Ta S Ward-1(5), Aurangabad. Kannad Dist Aurangabad, Aurangabad – 431115. Pan:Cnzps9338D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Mukesh Chudiwal Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 28/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac],Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2022-23Dated 17.10.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 28.02.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A). Nfac Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Ex-Parte Without Considering The Written Submissions, Documents, Books Of

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

from the Assessment Order, Assessee has made elaborate submission during assessment proceedings, rather Assessee had also attended before Investigation Wing in response to summons under section 131 of the Act and filed all the details called-for. Assessee has denied any transaction, any link with Mr.Ashish Rameshchand Sahuji. 8. Inspite

ACIT, CIRCLE-52(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. SINGHANIA ALU FOIL CONTAINERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2743/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

fact that no independent verification has been carried out by the AO with loan creditor, by way of issue of summons under section 131, or in any other manner. AO has not recorded any statement of the lender to verify the genuineness of loan transactions. There is no finding

Showing 1–20 of 379 · Page 1 of 19

...