← All Phrases

“Section 133(6)”

Section References (mined)Section 133Section 133(6)6,687 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 133(6) is CIT v. Simit P. Sheth (356 ITR 451), cited in 1,465 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 133(6)

CIT v. Simit P. Sheth
356 ITR 451 · 2013 · High Court
1,465
citing judgments

Additions for alleged bogus purchases should be restricted to the profit element, not the entire turnover. The profit element is often estimated at 12.5% of the purported bogus purchases.

CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd.
159 ITR 78 · 1986 · Supreme Court
897
citing judgments

When an assessee provides the identity and address of a creditor or investor for a cash credit or share capital under Section 68, the burden shifts to the Department to establish lack of genuineness or creditworthiness, requiring it to conduct further inquiries; mere non-compliance by third parties to summons cannot be the sole basis for an adverse inference against the assessee.

Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO
236 ITR 34 · 1999 · Supreme Court
862
citing judgments

For reassessment proceedings under Section 148, the Assessing Officer only needs prima facie material to have a reason to believe income has escaped assessment. Conclusive proof or evaluation of the sufficiency and correctness of such material is not required at the stage of issuing the notice.

CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd.
216 CTR 195 · 2008 · Supreme Court
854
citing judgments

If an assessee company receives share application money from alleged bogus shareholders and provides their details to the Assessing Officer, no addition can be made under Section 68 in the company's hands; the Department must proceed against the shareholders by reopening their individual assessments.

CIT v. Tata Elxsi Ltd.
349 ITR 98 · 2012 · High Court
818
citing judgments

When computing deduction under Section 10A, if communication or telecommunication expenses are excluded from export turnover, they must also be excluded from total turnover to maintain consistency and apply the ordinary meaning of 'turnover' in context.

CIT v. Bholanath Poly Fab. Pvt. Ltd.
355 ITR 290 · 2013 · High Court
712
citing judgments

If an assessee makes purchases from bogus parties, but the underlying goods are genuinely acquired and sold, only the profit margin embedded in such purchases, and not the entire value of the bogus purchases, should be added to the assessee's income.

(Central)-1 v. NRA Iron & Steel (P) Ltd.
103 Taxmann.com 48 · 2019 · Supreme Court
696
citing judgments

When assessing cash credits, share capital, or loans, the assessee bears the onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions. This burden is not discharged merely by documentary evidence if field inquiries reveal accommodation entries or dealings with paper/shell companies.

CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull
87 ITR 349 · 1973 · Supreme Court
525
citing judgments

The onus to prove that an apparent transaction or explanation is not real lies with the person who claims it to be so. If an assessee provides a plausible explanation for a transaction, the revenue must establish that the apparent transaction is not genuine.

Judgments citing Section 133(6)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Vijayawada vs. The Krishna District Milk Producers Mutually Aided Co Op Union Limited, Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 370/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam06 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80P(2)(d)

Mutually Aided Co-op Union Limited at Limited (in short “GCMMFL”) amounting to Rs. 26,58,52,800/-. Ld. AO issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act to GCMMEL, and after considering the account statement by GCMMEFL observed that the assessee has made payments to the tune ... ledger account of GCMMEFL in the books of the assessee. On this issue, Ld. DR submitted that in response to notice under section 133(6) of the Act, GCMMEFL has furnished the account statement reflecting the purchases made by the assessee. According to this statement the assessee has made payment

Gck Stock Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 1(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 1572/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2015-2016
For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shaha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 234Section 250Section 271

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Shesharam Kumawat, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-8(2), Hyderabad

ITA 191/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: us :

For Appellant: Shri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav. Sr.D.R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘बी’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B‘ Bench, Hyderabad श्री रवीश

Nitin Avantilal Doshi, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 20(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1667/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui- Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

dismissed the objections vide order dated 18.12.2017. The AO called for details pertaining to the loan and also issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act to the parties from whom the unsecured loan was taken. After perusing the details furnished by the assessee the AO held that ... details such as copy of ledger account, bank statements, income tax returns, balance sheet etc. It was also recorded that notice under section 133(6) of the Act was issued to the said parties which were duly responded by them. The identity of the parties could not be, therefore disputed

Nissim Traders Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 10(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3090/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri P.V. Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui- Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148

assessee to furnish the details of the transactions with M/s Payal Fine Lab Pvt. Ltd. The AO also issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act to M/s Payal Fine Lab Pvt. Ltd. For the reason that no details have been furnished by the assessee with regard ... impugned transactions and for the reason that M/s Payal Fine Lab Pvt. Ltd. has not responded to the notice under section 133(6) of the Act, the AO made an addition of Rs. 1,15,57,000/- towards the receipts of Rs. 55,00,000/- and sale

Roshan Lal, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhiwadi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 50/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

For Appellant: Sh. Prateek BasotiaFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 69A

cash into his bank account. The Income Tax Department, upon noticing the high-value deposits, issued a notice under Section 133(6) and later reopened the assessment under Section 148, alleging that the deposits were unexplained. The assessee did not file an Income Tax Return (ITR), as agricultural income

Shreesomnidhi Infrasolutions Pvt Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 8, Pune

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

ITA 23/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Paras MunotFor Respondent: Shri Mallikarjun Utture
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

Avinash S Sadamate ACIT Circle 3 3 1, Mumbai vs. Vijay Security Systems Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1208/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Acit Circle-(3)(3)(1) Vijay Security Systems Private Room No. 552, Aayakar Limited, 35 Chandivali Village Off Bhavan, M.K. Road, Vs. Saki Vihar Road, Andheri (East), Churchgate, Mumbai-400072. Mumbai-400020. Pan: Aaacv1363L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri. Sandeep Chaturvedi Ca Revenue By Ms. Pradnya Gholap, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 05/05/2025 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Revenue / Assessing Officer Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Ld. Cit(A)) Dated 24.01.2025 For A.Y. 2009-10. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “ (1) "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Justified In Treating The Assessment Completed Ex-Parte U/S.144 Of The Act Disregarding The Fact That Desired Details Called For Were Not Submitted Before The Ao I.E. Ito-11(3)(3) Having Jurisdiction Over The Case?" (Ii) "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Justified In Not Deciding The Appeal On Merit Of The Additions Made By Ao & In Fact, Not Considering The Fact That The Information Of Obtaining Accommodation Bills Towards Alleged Bogus Purchases Was Received From The Sales Department?" (Iii) "Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Rightly Dismissed The Appeal Without Considering The Fact That The Genuineness Of The Details Submitted By The Assessee During Remand Proceedings By The Assessee Officer Could Not Be Ascertained In The Absence Of Parties Involved & The Same Was Not Questioned As Well By The Ld.Cit(A)?" Acit Vs Vijay Security Services (Iv) "The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend And/Or Vary Grounds Of Appeal Before Or During The Course Of Hearing.”

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69C

information received and the website of sale tax department, the assessee obtained accommodation bill from Riya enterprises and Divine Packaging. Notice under section 133(6) were issued to both the parties which was returned back with the remark “left”. Current address was not provided by assessee. In response to remand ... fact that purchases shown from such party was bogus. The assessee failed to prove the genuiness of such purchases. The notices under section 133(6) was 6 ACIT Vs Vijay Security Services issued during remand proceedings were returned back by the postal authority by the remark “left”. The assessee failed

Pancham Pal, Patna vs. I.T.O, Ward- 6 (4), Patna

ITA 7/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna02 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 250(6)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण पटना पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH AT KOLKATA [वर्चुअल कोटु] [Virtual

Rajendrakumar Chhanalal Shah, Mehsana vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Patan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1865/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ankit Jain, Sr DR
Section 133(6)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Radiance Realty Developers India Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as

ITA 2984/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 43C

deduction in its profit and loss account. The details of parties were furnished during the assessment proceedings. The assessing officer issued notice under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to such Act, 1961) to the parties for verification of the transaction with the assessee. Assessing ... figure of purchase disclosed by the assessee from the parties and the reply received from the parties in response to notices under Section 133(6) of the Act, 1961. It was also found that several parties had not responded to the notices under Section 133(6

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Radiance Realty Developers India Ltd., Chennai

ITA 2983/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 43C

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए 'न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH: CHENNΑΙ श्री एबी टी. वर्की, न्यायिक

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Radiance Realty Developers India Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as

ITA 2981/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 43C

deduction in its profit and loss account. The details of parties were furnished during the assessment proceedings. The assessing officer issued notice under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to such Act, 1961) to the parties for verification of the transaction with the assessee. Assessing ... figure of purchase disclosed by the assessee from the parties and the reply received from the parties in response to notices under Section 133(6) of the Act, 1961. It was also found that several parties had not responded to the notices under Section 133(6

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Radiance Realty Developers India Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as

ITA 2980/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 43C

deduction in its profit and loss account. The details of parties were furnished during the assessment proceedings. The assessing officer issued notice under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to such Act, 1961) to the parties for verification of the transaction with the assessee. Assessing ... figure of purchase disclosed by the assessee from the parties and the reply received from the parties in response to notices under Section 133(6) of the Act, 1961. It was also found that several parties had not responded to the notices under Section 133(6

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Radiance Realty Developers India Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as

ITA 2979/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 43C

deduction in its profit and loss account. The details of parties were furnished during the assessment proceedings. The assessing officer issued notice under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to such Act, 1961) to the parties for verification of the transaction with the assessee. Assessing ... figure of purchase disclosed by the assessee from the parties and the reply received from the parties in response to notices under Section 133(6) of the Act, 1961. It was also found that several parties had not responded to the notices under Section 133(6

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Radiance Realty Developers India Ltd., Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as

ITA 2978/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 43C

deduction in its profit and loss account. The details of parties were furnished during the assessment proceedings. The assessing officer issued notice under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to such Act, 1961) to the parties for verification of the transaction with the assessee. Assessing ... figure of purchase disclosed by the assessee from the parties and the reply received from the parties in response to notices under Section 133(6) of the Act, 1961. It was also found that several parties had not responded to the notices under Section 133(6

Radiance Realty Developers India Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as

ITA 2972/CHNY/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 43C

deduction in its profit and loss account. The details of parties were furnished during the assessment proceedings. The assessing officer issued notice under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to such Act, 1961) to the parties for verification of the transaction with the assessee. Assessing ... figure of purchase disclosed by the assessee from the parties and the reply received from the parties in response to notices under Section 133(6) of the Act, 1961. It was also found that several parties had not responded to the notices under Section 133(6

Radiance Realty Developers India Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Chennai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee as

ITA 2971/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.T.Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Shivanand K Kalakeri, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 40A(3)Section 43C

deduction in its profit and loss account. The details of parties were furnished during the assessment proceedings. The assessing officer issued notice under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to such Act, 1961) to the parties for verification of the transaction with the assessee. Assessing ... figure of purchase disclosed by the assessee from the parties and the reply received from the parties in response to notices under Section 133(6) of the Act, 1961. It was also found that several parties had not responded to the notices under Section 133(6

Kandarp Hasmukh Sheth, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 32 2 2 Mumbai, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly dismissed in above terms

ITA 4457/MUM/2024[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J (SMC)”, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ

DCIT 13(3)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Raj Arcades Homes Private Limited (Aafcr6616R), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3575/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Respondent: Shri J.P. Bairagra, CA
Section 143(3)Section 195J

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT