← 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)

Shanker Lal, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 36(1) Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3808/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Shanker Lal Vs Ito C/O-Sumer Garg & Co. Ward-36(1) 501A, Itl Northex Tower Delhi. A-09, Netaji Subhash Place Pitampura, Delhi-110034 Pan-Abgpl9915J Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri S.C.Garg, Ca Respondent By Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 17.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02.05.2025 Order

Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR

Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Kota vs. Ram Lal and Sons, Kota

In the result, grounds taken by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 408/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumarito, Ward 2(1), Kota. ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194HSection 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH “B”, JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI NARINDER KUMAR

Sandeep Kumar Gupta, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 29(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 May 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sandeep Kr. Gupta ……………...……………………………..….……….Appellant 27/H/2, Gobra Gorasthan Road, Kolkata – 46. [Pan: Agspg8435F] Vs. Ito, Ward-29(1), Kolkata……..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Indranil Banerjee, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 01, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 01, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 21.11.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 336 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Find Reasonable Cause & Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017-18 By Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.7,63,000/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy

Mohamed Sharif Abdul Rahman, Madurai vs. DCIT, Ncc-1, Madurai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 277/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George Kand Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 277/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohamed Sharif Abdul The Deputy Commissioner Rahman, Vs. Of Income Tax, 157, South Masi Street, Non-Corporate Circle – 1, Madurai – 625 001. Madurai Pan: Aclpa 1361P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri P. Kathir, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Anitha, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.05.2025

For Appellant: Shri P. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 44A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी जॉज" जॉज

Samoo Designers & Engineers India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-22(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2396/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No. 2396/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 बनाम Income Tax Officer, Shivom Trexim Private Ltd., Ward-1, Room No.203, Vs. Plot No.26, Sector-25, Aayakar Bhawan, Sector-6, Huda Part-Ii, Panipat, Panipat, Haryana. Haryana. Pan No.Aapcs8392H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 68

ITANo.2396/Del/2024 SHIVOM TREXIM PVT. LTD. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA

Mohammad Ahatehsham, Raebareli vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 438/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. B.P. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl CIT DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69A

assessee on 17.10.2022. Thereafter, the ld. AO records that he issued as many as three notices under section 142(1), three notices under section 133(6) and a show cause notice on 6.02.2023 and 7.03.2023 asking the assessee to make a submission and explain the deposit. He reproduced a copy

Saurabh Pravinbhai Patel and Brijesh Pravinbhai Patel AOP, Anand vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, New Delhi

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

ITA 1017/AHD/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2025AY 2020-2021

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

Section 133(6)Section 13ASection 143Section 80G

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

Late Mr Kiritkumar Rasirlal Mehta (Through Legal Heir Uncle Sunil Shah), Sangali vs. ITO Ward 2(2), ITO Ward Two(Two)

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 424/PUN/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: the notice under Section 148 was issued and, as such, the completion of assessment by the Ld. Assessing Officer in the name of deceased person is void ab initio and, thus, the assessment as framed deserves to be quashed.

Section 1Section 133(6)Section 148Section 250Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”एस एम सी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFOREDR.DIPAK P

Pravin Narayan Attarde, Jalgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(1) Jalgaon, Jalgaon

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

ITA 267/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.267/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawdiaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 4(1), Kolkata vs. Sendoz Commercials Private Limited, Kolkata

The appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 28/KOL/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.28/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata ………………………………….…..……Appellant Vs. Sendoz Commercials Pvt. Ltd…………..……...........……........……...…..…..Respondent 644, Marshall House, 25, Strand Road, Kol-1. [Pan: Aagcs5174E] C.O. No.12/Kol/2025 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.28/Kol/2025) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sendoz Commercials Pvt. Ltd …………..………….………………..….…..Cross-Objector 644, Marshall House, 25, Strand Road, Kol-1. [Pan: Aagcs5174E] Vs. Acit, Central Circle-4(1), Kolkata.............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Tulsyan, Fca & Deepak Mudhra, Aca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Prabhakar Prakash Ranjan, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : April 30, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 30, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Revenue Has Filed An Appeal & The Assessee Has Filed The Corresponding Cross-Objection Against The Same Order Dated 27.08.2024 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Outset, The Registry Has Informed That There Is A Delay Of 37 Days In Filing The Present Appeal. The Revenue Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating Reasons For Such Delay. After Considering The Application, We Condone The Delay In Filing The Appeal & Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits Of The Case.

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy

Arumugam Sivasankaran, Cuddalore vs. ITO, Ward-4, Cuddaore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 553/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.553/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arumugam Sivasankaran, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 160, National Agencies Ward 4, Main Road, Vasistapuram, Tittagudi, Cuddalore. Cuddalore 606 106. [Pan:Adqps5673J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.12.2024 Passed By The Addl./Jcit(A), Agra For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Assessee Raised 9 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Confirming The Addition Made Under Section 69A Of The 2

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M.P. Guru Prasad, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69Section 69A

Notice under section 142(1) r.w.s. 129 of the Act with questionnaires was issued to the assessee. Notice under section 133(6) of the Act was also issued to the Canara Bank, Agaramsigoor Branch. After verification of bank details as reflected at pages 2 to 5, the Assessing Officer noted

Devcare Solutions, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corp Cir 22(1), Tambaram

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2854/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2854/Chny/2024 Assessment Years: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri.Y.Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Smt.Samantha Mullamudi, Addl.CIT
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 40A(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘ए’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI माननीय श्री मनु कुमार धिरर

Shri. Sannappa Ramappa, Davangere vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Davangere

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

ITA 50/BANG/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Richa Bakiwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

relying on the information obtained during the summons to make the addition. The Assessing Officer failed X to exercise the statutory powers under section 133(6) of the Act to cross-verify the information before concluding the assessment proceedings, thereby vitiating the assessment. The learned Assessing Officer erred in disregarding

Mahendra Kumar, Bangalore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Bengaluru

In the result, the revisionary order passed u/s

ITA 812/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das, CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Sri. Narayanappa Muthuraju, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(3), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2301/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Tatakrishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 271ASection 69ASection 69C

` IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : (Bangalore) BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Sri. Narayanappa Muthuraju, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(3), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2300/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Tatakrishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 271ASection 69ASection 69C

` IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : (Bangalore) BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL

Virmabhai Ajabaji Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 544/MUM/2025[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanvirmabhai Ajabbaji Patel Vs. Ito – 19(3)(5) Room No. 201, Matru 156, Room No. 6, Mistry Mandir Bldg, Tardeo Bldg, 2Nd Kumbharwala Road, Mumbai. (Vijesh Metal) – 400004. Pan/Gir No. Agkpp3389B (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250bSection 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL

Parekh Marketing Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax Circle 1(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 376/MUM/2025[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Parekh Marketing Limited Dcit-1(2)(1) 2Nd Floor, Mafatlal House Room No. 535 Backbay Reclamation Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Mumbai-400 020. Road,Mumbai-400 020 Pan : Aaacp7917J Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri H.M. BhattFor Respondent: Shri Deepak Jain
Section 133(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Mumbai “C” Bench, Mumbai. Before Shri Sandeep Gosain (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) Parekh

Sanjeev Behl, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Int Tax Ward, 1(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5345/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri K GopalFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar G Subramanyam, Sr.DR
Section 10Section 143(1)Section 144C(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(24)Section 250Section 56Section 80

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

ACIT Circle 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Johnson Dye Works Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1118/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Prabhash Shankar, Am Acit Circle 4(3)(1), Mumbai Johnson Dye Works Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Ground Floor, New Era House, Churchgate – 400020. Vs. Mogul Lane, Matunga (W), Mumbai – 400016. Pan/Gir No. Aaacj2082J (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Jayesh Dadia/Samir Shah Respondent By : Shri. Ajay Singh (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2012-13. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal Along With Additional Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Deleting Transactions Of Rs. 2,12,42,250/-In Nsel Exchange As Client Code Modification Transaction For Shifting Of Profit/ Loss Added To The Income Of The Assessee Relying On The Decision In The Case Of Coronation Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Dcit 390 Itr 464 (Bom.) Without Going Into The Merits Of The Case? Johnson Dye Works Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri. Jayesh Dadia/Samir ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Ajay Singh (Sr. DR)
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM AND SHRI. PRABHASH SHANKAR, AM ACIT