← 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)

Income Tax Officer, Kolkata vs. Jkj Jewellers (Hcm), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 420/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Jkj Jewellers (Hcm) Income Tax Officer 1St Floor, 18, Hanspukur First 3, Govt. Place (West), Ground Lane, Burrabazar, Floor, Kolkata-700069, West Vs. Kolkata-700007, Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aakfj7956Q Co No. 26/Kol/2024 (Arising In Ita No. 420/Kol/2024 For A.Y. 2017-18) Jkj Jewellers (Hcm) Income Tax Officer 1St Floor, 18, Hanspukur First 3, Govt. Place (West), Ground Lane, Burrabazar, Floor, Kolkata-700069, Vs. Kolkata-700007, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Jhajharia, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, DR
Section 143Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

M/S. La Opala RG Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1) [Formerly JCIT, Range-12, Kolkata ]

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

ITA 1865/KOL/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle 11(1) M/S La Opala Rg Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, 8Th Floor, Premises No.803 & 804 Eco Centre, Em-4, Sector-V, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700091, West Bengal Kolkata-700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacl5569J Assessee By : Shri Ashok Kumar Tulsyan & Deepak Mundhra, Tanmoy Kar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Ruchika Sharma, Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kumar Tulsyan, &For Respondent: Shri Ruchika Sharma, DR
Section 133(6)Section 37

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

A.M Enterprises, Bengaluru vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 446/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Aprameya K, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N Senthil Kumar, CIT

assessee to file the necessary evidence justifying the payment of GST. The AO is also empowered to gather the necessary information under section 133(6) of the Act regarding the GST payment by M/s Royal Enterprise. 14.2 Without prejudice to the above, even if M/s Royal Enterprises has not paid

Rnb Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-32, New Delhi

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1211/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharmaita No.2588/Del/2022 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Ita No.2590/Del/2022 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Ita No.2592/Del/2022 (Assessment Year : 2017-18) Rnb Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Rnb House, 1, Shivaji Enclave, Central Circle-32, Main Road, Near Raja Garden, Opp. New Delhi Mother Dairy, New Delhi-110027 Pan No. Aadcr0962Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Aman Garg, Ca Revenue By Ms. Suman Malik, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.12.2024 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am : The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Respective Orders Passed Under S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) By The Ld.Cit(A) Is Tabulated Hereunder:-

Section 1Section 153A

transactions cannot be regarded as accommodation entries. 5. In order to verify the above documents and submissions made by the assessee, notice under section 133(6) were issued on 27.04.2022. In response to which documents pertaining to the parties from whom funds were received by the assessee were filed ... transactions cannot be regarded as accommodation entries. 5. In order to verify the above documents and submissions made by the assessee, notice under section 133(6) were issued on 27.04.2022. In response to which documents pertaining to the parties from whom funds were received by the assessee were filed

Rnb Infrastructure P.Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-32, New Delhi

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2592/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharmaita No.2588/Del/2022 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Ita No.2590/Del/2022 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Ita No.2592/Del/2022 (Assessment Year : 2017-18) Rnb Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Rnb House, 1, Shivaji Enclave, Central Circle-32, Main Road, Near Raja Garden, Opp. New Delhi Mother Dairy, New Delhi-110027 Pan No. Aadcr0962Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Aman Garg, Ca Revenue By Ms. Suman Malik, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.12.2024 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am : The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Respective Orders Passed Under S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) By The Ld.Cit(A) Is Tabulated Hereunder:-

Section 1Section 153A

transactions cannot be regarded as accommodation entries. 5. In order to verify the above documents and submissions made by the assessee, notice under section 133(6) were issued on 27.04.2022. In response to which documents pertaining to the parties from whom funds were received by the assessee were filed ... transactions cannot be regarded as accommodation entries. 5. In order to verify the above documents and submissions made by the assessee, notice under section 133(6) were issued on 27.04.2022. In response to which documents pertaining to the parties from whom funds were received by the assessee were filed

Rnb Infrastructure P.Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-32, New Delhi

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2591/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharmaita No.2588/Del/2022 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Ita No.2590/Del/2022 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Ita No.2592/Del/2022 (Assessment Year : 2017-18) Rnb Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Rnb House, 1, Shivaji Enclave, Central Circle-32, Main Road, Near Raja Garden, Opp. New Delhi Mother Dairy, New Delhi-110027 Pan No. Aadcr0962Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Aman Garg, Ca Revenue By Ms. Suman Malik, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.12.2024 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am : The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Respective Orders Passed Under S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) By The Ld.Cit(A) Is Tabulated Hereunder:-

Section 1Section 153A

transactions cannot be regarded as accommodation entries. 5. In order to verify the above documents and submissions made by the assessee, notice under section 133(6) were issued on 27.04.2022. In response to which documents pertaining to the parties from whom funds were received by the assessee were filed ... transactions cannot be regarded as accommodation entries. 5. In order to verify the above documents and submissions made by the assessee, notice under section 133(6) were issued on 27.04.2022. In response to which documents pertaining to the parties from whom funds were received by the assessee were filed

Rnb Infrastructure P.Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-32, New Delhi

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2590/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharmaita No.2588/Del/2022 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Ita No.2590/Del/2022 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Ita No.2592/Del/2022 (Assessment Year : 2017-18) Rnb Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Rnb House, 1, Shivaji Enclave, Central Circle-32, Main Road, Near Raja Garden, Opp. New Delhi Mother Dairy, New Delhi-110027 Pan No. Aadcr0962Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Aman Garg, Ca Revenue By Ms. Suman Malik, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.12.2024 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am : The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Respective Orders Passed Under S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) By The Ld.Cit(A) Is Tabulated Hereunder:-

Section 1Section 153A

transactions cannot be regarded as accommodation entries. 5. In order to verify the above documents and submissions made by the assessee, notice under section 133(6) were issued on 27.04.2022. In response to which documents pertaining to the parties from whom funds were received by the assessee were filed ... transactions cannot be regarded as accommodation entries. 5. In order to verify the above documents and submissions made by the assessee, notice under section 133(6) were issued on 27.04.2022. In response to which documents pertaining to the parties from whom funds were received by the assessee were filed

Rnb Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle -32, New Delhi

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2589/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharmaita No.2588/Del/2022 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Ita No.2590/Del/2022 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Ita No.2592/Del/2022 (Assessment Year : 2017-18) Rnb Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Rnb House, 1, Shivaji Enclave, Central Circle-32, Main Road, Near Raja Garden, Opp. New Delhi Mother Dairy, New Delhi-110027 Pan No. Aadcr0962Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Aman Garg, Ca Revenue By Ms. Suman Malik, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.12.2024 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am : The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Respective Orders Passed Under S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) By The Ld.Cit(A) Is Tabulated Hereunder:-

Section 1Section 153A

transactions cannot be regarded as accommodation entries. 5. In order to verify the above documents and submissions made by the assessee, notice under section 133(6) were issued on 27.04.2022. In response to which documents pertaining to the parties from whom funds were received by the assessee were filed ... transactions cannot be regarded as accommodation entries. 5. In order to verify the above documents and submissions made by the assessee, notice under section 133(6) were issued on 27.04.2022. In response to which documents pertaining to the parties from whom funds were received by the assessee were filed

Rnb Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle -32, Delhi

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2588/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Anubhav Sharmaita No.2588/Del/2022 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Ita No.2590/Del/2022 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) Ita No.2592/Del/2022 (Assessment Year : 2017-18) Rnb Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Rnb House, 1, Shivaji Enclave, Central Circle-32, Main Road, Near Raja Garden, Opp. New Delhi Mother Dairy, New Delhi-110027 Pan No. Aadcr0962Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Aman Garg, Ca Revenue By Ms. Suman Malik, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.12.2024 Order Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am : The Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Respective Orders Passed Under S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) By The Ld.Cit(A) Is Tabulated Hereunder:-

Section 1Section 153A

transactions cannot be regarded as accommodation entries. 5. In order to verify the above documents and submissions made by the assessee, notice under section 133(6) were issued on 27.04.2022. In response to which documents pertaining to the parties from whom funds were received by the assessee were filed ... transactions cannot be regarded as accommodation entries. 5. In order to verify the above documents and submissions made by the assessee, notice under section 133(6) were issued on 27.04.2022. In response to which documents pertaining to the parties from whom funds were received by the assessee were filed

Alpha Stock & Finservices Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7798/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Mahavir Singh & Sh. S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Alpha Stock & Vs Dcit Finservices Pvt Ltd. 24/1A, Circle – 2 (1) Mohan Co-Operative, New Delhi Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044 Pan No.Aaaca8427G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133Section 143(3)Section 68

proof to establish the fact that these alleged investors had the capacity to make such an investment The AO had issued letters under section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act. 1961 to Mis Frontier Portfolio Management Pvt. Ltd & M/s SAI Powertech System Pvt. Ltd. The said letters ware neither

Abhaykumar Sevantilal Sanghavi, Deesa vs. The ACIT, Circle- Palanpur, Palanpur

Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1368/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1367/Ahd/2024 & 1368/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Abhaykumar Sevantilal Acit Circle, Palanpur बनाम/ Sanghavi [Old Jurisdiction-Circle, V/S. Sanghavi Brothers Palanpur. 1St Floor, Swastik Bldg New Jurisdiction-Circle, Nr. City Police Station Gandhinagar.] Nr. Dena Bank, Main Bazar Deesa – 385 535 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afbps 1660 L (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Pertain To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2016-17 & 2017-18. Since The Issues Involved Are Common & Connected, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. The Appeals Arise Out Of The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23(4)Section 250Section 68

assessment order for AY 2016-17 substantiates this claim. Despite these explanations and supporting documents, the AO did not issue any notice under Section 133(6) of the Act or summon the lenders under Section 131 of the Act to verify the cash deposits or their sources. This crucial step ... were essential for plotting and selling the land. The AR emphasized that the AO failed to verify the invoices, vendors, or transactions under Section 133(6) of the Act or Section 131 of the Act despite having access to all necessary details. Reliance was placed

Abhaykumar Sevantilal Sanghavi, Deesa vs. Old Jurisdiction- Circle, Palanpur New Jurisdiction-Circle, Gandhinagar

Accordingly, these grounds are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1367/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.1367/Ahd/2024 & 1368/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years :2016-17 & 2017-18 Respectively Abhaykumar Sevantilal Acit Circle, Palanpur बनाम/ Sanghavi [Old Jurisdiction-Circle, V/S. Sanghavi Brothers Palanpur. 1St Floor, Swastik Bldg New Jurisdiction-Circle, Nr. City Police Station Gandhinagar.] Nr. Dena Bank, Main Bazar Deesa – 385 535 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Afbps 1660 L (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/12/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/12/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both These Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Pertain To The Assessment Years (Ays) 2016-17 & 2017-18. Since The Issues Involved Are Common & Connected, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order. The Appeals Arise Out Of The Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Under Section 250 Of The

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23(4)Section 250Section 68

assessment order for AY 2016-17 substantiates this claim. Despite these explanations and supporting documents, the AO did not issue any notice under Section 133(6) of the Act or summon the lenders under Section 131 of the Act to verify the cash deposits or their sources. This crucial step ... were essential for plotting and selling the land. The AR emphasized that the AO failed to verify the invoices, vendors, or transactions under Section 133(6) of the Act or Section 131 of the Act despite having access to all necessary details. Reliance was placed

Dhoot Compack Private Limited, Ahmednagar vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar

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

ITA 1549/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Prasad S. Bhandari
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY

Chilakala Govinda Sekhar, Mylavaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Proddutur

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

ITA 1173/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. (Accountant Member), Shri K. Narasimha Chary (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms.S.Sandhya, ARFor Respondent: : Ms.Reema Yadav,DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘SMC’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant

Dinesh M. Semlani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 4758/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2021-22 Dinesh M. Semlani, Income Tax Officer, A/501, Harsh Kushal Ward-42(1)(2), Co-Op. Hsg, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Ashokvan, Dahisar East, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai. Bandra East, Pan : Amwps3986R Mumbai. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M.S. MathuriaFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 69Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) SHRI C.V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R

Dharti Developers, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -24(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 3895/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rohan DehhpandeFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) SHRI C.V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R

Gaurika Multitrade Private Limited, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai-8, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1977/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member)

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(23)Section 263

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘G‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Mili Marketing Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-16(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 2319/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us[Assessment Year : 2016-17] M/S. Mili Marketing Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, H-108, Connaught Circus, Ward-16(4), New Delhi-110001. New Delhi. Pan-Aabcm7097H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ved Jain, Adv & Shri Aman Garg, Ca Respondent By Ms. Smita Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 12.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2024

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

course of assessment proceedings the assessing officer has called for the information from Udyam Merchandise Pvt. Ltd by issue of notice under section 133(6) of the Act. 5. In response thereto the Udyam Merchandise Pvt. Ltd. has submitted its reply along with necessary evidences including the Balance Mili Marketing ... over the period. 14. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer has carried out a verification by issue of notice under section 133(6) and in response thereto all the necessary evidences and the bank statement and the Assessment Order were submitted. It is important to point

Jitendra Amrutlal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, these Tax Appeals are also allowed

ITA 517/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Your Honour On 10-12-2024, You Are Requested To Adjourn The Above Referred Matters & Oblige. Sorry For Inconvenience In The Matters”. Thus, The Assessee Has Not Spelt Out Any Reason For Seeking Adjournment In Spite Of Service Of Notices. Further, Perusal Of The Assessment Orders Also Make It Clear The Same Were Ex-Parte Before The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Shri TR Senthil Kumar, Judicial

Jitendra Amrutlal Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, these Tax Appeals are also allowed

ITA 516/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Your Honour On 10-12-2024, You Are Requested To Adjourn The Above Referred Matters & Oblige. Sorry For Inconvenience In The Matters”. Thus, The Assessee Has Not Spelt Out Any Reason For Seeking Adjournment In Spite Of Service Of Notices. Further, Perusal Of The Assessment Orders Also Make It Clear The Same Were Ex-Parte Before The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Shri TR Senthil Kumar, Judicial