Section 133(6) — 6,687 judgments | BharatTax

ABHISHEKBHAI ASHOKBHAI PATEL,KADI vs. THE ITO, WARD 1, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1803/AHD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Apr 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Deepak, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Ananya Kulshresth, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 69A

under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act. During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer obtained the bank statement under section 133(6) of the Act and observed cash deposits aggregating to Rs.12,27,000/-, the source of which remained unexplained. Accordingly, the said amount was added

AMBEY ENTERPRISES,DELHI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5505/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarambey Enterprises Vs. Assessing Officer 30/54 A 1St Floor Gali Ward 58(1) No.8, Vishwas Nagar Delhi Shahdara, Delhi 110032 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abdfa 0570D Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 68Section 69A

P a g e | 1 Ambey Enterprises (AY 2017-18) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI vs. SHALIMAR CORP. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3068/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Rajani, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN

SHALIMAR CORP LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2769/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Rajani, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN

BHAWNA KAPOOR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-62(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 632/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarsmt. Bhawna Kapoor Vs. Acit Prop M/S Manish Circle 62(1) Handicraft 1196, Main Delhi Bazar, Paharganj, New Delhi 110055 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adxpk 3853 F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ramesh Chander, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69A

matter of fact, the demat account statement of the Respondent was called for from the broker M/s SMC Global Securities Ltd. under Section 133(6) of the Act, on perusal whereof it was found that the Respondent was not a regular investor in penny scrips. 10. We have heard ... attempt to delve into the question of infusion of Respondent's unaccounted money, but he did not dig deeper. Notices issued under Section 133(6)/131 of the Act were issued to M/s Gold Line International Finvest Limited, but nothing emerged from this effort. The payment for the shares

GYAN PRAKASH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-10(4), NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6271/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Apr 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarlate Gyan Prakash Gupta Vs. Ito Through Legal Heir Raj Ward 10(4) Kumari Gupta New Delhi Plot No.6 & 7, Defence Enclave, Laxmi Nagar, East Delhi 110092 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Adupg 2697 N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Ajit Gandhi, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

fact that the M/s. Sunstar Realty Development Limited, HPC Biosciences Limited and AMS Powertronics Limited have not complied with the notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act. 9.1 Ld. AR has submitted that non-compliance by any third party over which the Assessee is not having any control ... matter of fact, the demat account statement of the Respondent was called for from the broker M/s SMC Global Securities Ltd. under Section 133(6) of the Act, on perusal whereof it was found that the Respondent was not a regular investor in penny scrips

H R MOTORS,HIMATNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD

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

ITA 1764/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

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

Section 143(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Shri T. R. Senthil

INCOME TAX OFFICER-17(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ANANTAM, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 8819/MUM/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri D.C. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

INCOME TAX OFFICER-17(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANANTAM, MUMBAI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 8818/MUM/2025[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri D.C. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM

RANJANA DEVI,MAUR MANDI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 410/ASR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 410/Asr/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ranjana Devi, C/O Jishu Trading Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Co. Maur Mandi, Punjab. Bathinda. [Pan:-Alzpd4607L] (Appellant) (Respondent) None. Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr.

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 69A

uphold the action of the Leamed Assessing Officer in framing the assessment without appraising and ignoring submissions and other information supplied under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as regarding the source of money. 2. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is against ... Returns, Capital Accounts, Bank Statements and Affidavit confirming the cash gift given to appellant were submitted. 7. That Assessing Officer issued notices under section 133(6) of IT Act to both the payer (Donor) Sh.Tarsem Kumar and I.T.A. No. 410/Asr/2025 5 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Jishu Garg for confirmation

NARAYAN BARTER PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-6(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2572/KOL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

disputed and verification is possible, whereas here the assessee failed to provide PAN and current addresses of the parties for independent verification under section 133(6). The transactions claimed by the assessee could not be independently verified, and no cogent evidence was provided to rebut the AO's conclusion ... addresses of the entities involved, making it impossible for the AO to verify the genuineness of the transactions independently by issuing notices under section 133(6). The AO's conclusion that the addition of Rs. 81,50,000/- as unexplained cash credit was justified remained unchallenged, as the assessee

MANOJ RAJARAM SHARMA,THANE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8313/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarmanoj Rajaram Ito - 42(3)(4), Sharma, Mumbai Office No. 615, 6Th Vs. Kautilya Bhawan, C- Floor, Centura Square 41-43, Avenue 3, Near It Park, Sg Barve Videsh Bhavan, G Road, Thane, Block, Bkc, Mumbai Maharashtra-400 604. – 400 051. Pan/Gir No. Bytps1944K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suryadev Yadav, Shri Karan Hariya & Shri Prashant Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 4Section 44A

compliance by the assessee to the statutory notices except a limited response at the final stage. The Assessing Officer obtained information under section 133(6) from State Bank of India and examined the bank account (Current Account 37303254619) of the assessee, wherein total credits

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

ITA 7844/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

have\nfiled their income tax returns alongwith documentary\nevidences. However, in respect of parties, which did not file\nresponse to notice under section 133(6) and/or who did not\nfile the ITR, the CIT(A) confirmed the additions. The\nsummary/chart of additions made by the AO and\nconfirmed/deleted ... n2009 -4- information, such as name, address and number\nof shares allotted. The Assessing Officer had issued enquiry\nletter under Section 133 (6) of the Act at random basis to\n25 persons, out of whom some of the persons confirmed\nthe genuineness of the transaction. However, some\npersons

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

ITA 7843/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

have\nfiled their income tax returns alongwith documentary\nevidences. However, in respect of parties, which did not file\nresponse to notice under section 133(6) and/or who did not\nfile the ITR, the CIT(A) confirmed the additions. The\nsummary/chart of additions made by the AO and\nconfirmed/deleted ... n2009 -4- information, such as name, address and number\nof shares allotted. The Assessing Officer had issued enquiry\nletter under Section 133 (6) of the Act at random basis to\n25 persons, out of whom some of the persons confirmed\nthe genuineness of the transaction. However, some\npersons

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

have filed their income tax returns alongwith documentary evidences. However, in respect of parties, which did not file response to notice under section 133(6) and/or who did not file the ITR, the CIT(A) confirmed the additions. The summary/chart of additions made by the AO and confirmed/deleted ... information, such as name, address and number of shares allotted. The Assessing Officer had issued enquiry letter under Section 133 (6) of the Act at random basis to 25 persons, out of whom some of the persons confirmed the genuineness of the transaction. However, some persons did not respond

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

ITA 7841/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

have\nfiled their income tax returns alongwith documentary\nevidences. However, in respect of parties, which did not file\nresponse to notice under section 133(6) and/or who did not\nfile the ITR, the CIT(A) confirmed the additions. The\nsummary/chart of additions made by the AO and\nconfirmed/deleted ... n2009 -4- information, such as name, address and number\nof shares allotted. The Assessing Officer had issued enquiry\nletter under Section 133 (6) of the Act at random basis to\n25 persons, out of whom some of the persons confirmed\nthe genuineness of the transaction. However, some\npersons

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

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

have filed their income tax returns alongwith documentary evidences. However, in respect of parties, which did not file response to notice under section 133(6) and/or who did not file the ITR, the CIT(A) confirmed the additions. The summary/chart of additions made by the AO and confirmed/deleted ... information, such as name, address and number of shares allotted. The Assessing Officer had issued enquiry letter under Section 133 (6) of the Act at random basis to 25 persons, out of whom some of the persons confirmed the genuineness of the transaction. However, some persons did not respond

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

ITA 7839/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

have\nfiled their income tax returns alongwith documentary\nevidences. However, in respect of parties, which did not file\nresponse to notice under section 133(6) and/or who did not\nfile the ITR, the CIT(A) confirmed the additions. The\nsummary/chart of additions made by the AO and\nconfirmed/deleted ... n2009 -4- information, such as name, address and number\nof shares allotted. The Assessing Officer had issued enquiry\nletter under Section 133 (6) of the Act at random basis to\n25 persons, out of whom some of the persons confirmed\nthe genuineness of the transaction. However, some\npersons

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

ITA 7838/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

have\nfiled their income tax returns alongwith documentary\nevidences. However, in respect of parties, which did not file\nresponse to notice under section 133(6) and/or who did not\nfile the ITR, the CIT(A) confirmed the additions. The\nsummary/chart of additions made by the AO and\nconfirmed/deleted ... n2009 -4- information, such as name, address and number\nof shares allotted. The Assessing Officer had issued enquiry\nletter under Section 133 (6) of the Act at random basis to\n25 persons, out of whom some of the persons confirmed\nthe genuineness of the transaction. However, some\npersons

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

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

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

have filed their income tax returns alongwith documentary evidences. However, in respect of parties, which did not file response to notice under section 133(6) and/or who did not file the ITR, the CIT(A) confirmed the additions. The summary/chart of additions made by the AO and confirmed/deleted ... information, such as name, address and number of shares allotted. The Assessing Officer had issued enquiry letter under Section 133 (6) of the Act at random basis to 25 persons, out of whom some of the persons confirmed the genuineness of the transaction. However, some persons did not respond

“Section 133(6)”

ABHISHEKBHAI ASHOKBHAI PATEL,KADI vs. THE ITO, WARD 1, MEHSANA

AMBEY ENTERPRISES,DELHI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, DELHI

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI vs. SHALIMAR CORP. LTD, MUMBAI

SHALIMAR CORP LTD,LUCKNOW vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-30, NEW DELHI

BHAWNA KAPOOR,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-62(1), NEW DELHI

GYAN PRAKASH GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-10(4), NEW DELHI

H R MOTORS,HIMATNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX OFFICER-17(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ANANTAM, MUMBAI

INCOME TAX OFFICER-17(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. ANANTAM, MUMBAI

RANJANA DEVI,MAUR MANDI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(1), BATHINDA

NARAYAN BARTER PRIVATE LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-6(1),KOLKATA, KOLKATA

MANOJ RAJARAM SHARMA,THANE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MUMBAI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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