← 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)

Juhi Associates, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 28(1), Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 142/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. Fenil BhatFor Respondent: 02/05/2024
Section 250Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI NARENDER

Income Tax Officer, Kalyan vs. J D Electric Works, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4521/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry () Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Mr. Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI NARENDER

Sanjay Vimalchand Borana, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-20(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3831/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year 2010-11 Sanjay Vimalchand Borana, 3, Nanji Rawji Bldg, A.D.Marg , Sewree, Mumbai 400 015. Pan:Aeypb-2999-F - Appellant

For Appellant: Mr. Margav Shukla &For Respondent: Shri Suni Mathews, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year 2010-11

Mrs Nilima Avinash Pradhan, Thane vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Thane

ITA 3693/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Ratnakar DeshpandeFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 54

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Pankaj Kumar Kasera, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 46(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5898/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshasstt. Yr: 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 147

order to verify the genuineness of the purchases made by the assessee, the Ld. AO called for information from various parties under section 133(6) of the Act. Out of various parties from whom the purchases have been made by the assessee, the Ld. AO disallowed purchases to the extent

ITO Ward -19(4), New Delhi vs. Pioneer Factors It Infra Developers Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result appeal is dismissed

ITA 1913/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2015-16 Ito, Ward-19(4) Vs. M/S. Pioneer Factor Room No. 209, Developers Pvt. Ltd. C.R. Building, 5Th Floor, Padma Palace, New Delhi. 86, Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019 Pan Aaecp3203B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Mayuri, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

creditors as required under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 5. Learned Representative for assessee submitted that in pursuance to notice under section 133(6) Smt. Kalawati Devi Jain, Smt. Sunaina Devi, Shri Ram Sewak Gupta submitted replies confirming subscription in preference share capital of assessee company, independently

Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. Ltd, 2009-10 vs. ACIT, Cir-4(1), Kol, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 495/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

order to cross verify the genuineness of transaction of purchases made by the assessee with M/s. S.R. Sales Corporation issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act, but the notice returned unserved with the Postal Department remarks “left this place”. The ld. Assessing Officer considering the fact that

Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. Ltd, 2009-10 vs. ACIT, Cir-4(1), Kol, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 494/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

order to cross verify the genuineness of transaction of purchases made by the assessee with M/s. S.R. Sales Corporation issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act, but the notice returned unserved with the Postal Department remarks “left this place”. The ld. Assessing Officer considering the fact that

Gillanders Arbuthnot and Co. Ltd, 2009-10 vs. ACIT, Cir-4(1), Kol, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 493/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

order to cross verify the genuineness of transaction of purchases made by the assessee with M/s. S.R. Sales Corporation issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act, but the notice returned unserved with the Postal Department remarks “left this place”. The ld. Assessing Officer considering the fact that

Quest Online, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-49(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1046/KOL/2023[2020-21`]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.1046/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Quest Online…………………………………...............................……….……Appellant Block-A, 3Rd Floor, Room No.24, 1, Chandni Chowk Street, Princep Street, Kolkata – 700072. [Pan:Aaafq4820G] Vs. Ito, Ward-49(1),Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate & Sunil Surana, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Datta, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 02, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 03, 2024 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2020-21Against The Order Dated 08.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Only Issue Raised In The Various Grounds Of Appeals Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition By Cit(A) Of Rs.14,82,41,932/- As Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 68 Of The Act R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 09.01.2021 Declaring Total Income From Business & Profession At Rs.36,73,790/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under Cass & Statutory Notices Were Duly Issued & Served Upon The Assessee. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Various Documents & Evidences Were Called For By The Assessing Officer From The Assessee

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, कोलकाता पीठ ‘ए’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg

Aishwarya Publications Private Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3650/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla (Jm) & Smt. Renu Jauhri (Am) I.T.A. No. 3650/Mum/2023 (A.Y. 2010-11) M/S. Aishwarya Vs. Ito, Ward 1(1)(1) Publication Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 534/579A 3Rd Floor, Centre Point Aayakar Bhavan 18Th Road, Chembur M.K. Road Mumbai-400 070. Mumbai-400 020. Pan : Aaaca3569K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S.G. Goyal & Shri Harsh S. Goyal Department By Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha Date Of Hearing 16.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 03.05.2024 O R D E R Per Renu Jauhri (Am) :-

Section 127Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 148(1)Section 151

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “A” BENCH, MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (JM) & SMT. RENU JAUHRI (AM) I.T.A

Computer Modelling Group Limited, Canada vs. ACIT International Taxation Circle 1(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

ITA 2091/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44B

section 148 of the Act. It was served but compliance was not made. He, then issued notice(s) to the above concerns under section 133(6) of the Act seeking details about the amount paid/accrued to the assessee, nature of products/services rendered by the assessee to them as well

Computer Modelling Group Limited, Canada vs. DCIT Circle International Taxation 1(2)(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

ITA 2090/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44B

section 148 of the Act. It was served but compliance was not made. He, then issued notice(s) to the above concerns under section 133(6) of the Act seeking details about the amount paid/accrued to the assessee, nature of products/services rendered by the assessee to them as well

Computer Modelling Group Limited, Canada vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2)(1), Int. Taxation, New Delhi

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee for AY 2012-13,

ITA 2305/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44B

section 148 of the Act. It was served but compliance was not made. He, then issued notice(s) to the above concerns under section 133(6) of the Act seeking details about the amount paid/accrued to the assessee, nature of products/services rendered by the assessee to them as well

DCIT, Central Circle, Kolkata vs. Merlins, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 907/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 907/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Merlins Merlin House Tax, Central Circle -2(3), Kolkata Vs Samghu Nath Pandit Street Bhowanipore Kolkata - 700020 [Pan : Aatfm9627P] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tulsyan, Fca Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/02/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 20, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 02/06/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 28 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. There Is A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Stating Therein, The Reasons For The Delay. On Perusal Of The Petition, We Are Convinced That The Revenue Was Prevented For Reasonable Cause From Filing This Appeal In Prescribed Time Limit. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Hearing On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 68

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE

Wellman Logistice Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT(OSD), Ward-4(1), Kolkata.

ITA 694/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 6Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'सी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA डॉ. मनीष

Arjun Manoj Purohit, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Thane

In the result, both the appeals of the assesse are allowed

ITA 3655/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3654/Mum/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3655/Mum/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) बनाम/ Arjun Manoj Purohit Ito, Ward-2(1) Room No. 25B, 6Th Arjun Niwas Padmavati Vs. Nagar, 150 Feet Road Floor, Asher It Park, Shyander (W), Thane- Road No. 16Z, Wagle 401105. Industrial Estate, Thane- 400604. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Anxpp8321K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Joshi Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02/05/2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. DR)
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN

Arjun Manoj Purohit, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Thane

In the result, both the appeals of the assesse are allowed

ITA 3654/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3654/Mum/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3655/Mum/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) बनाम/ Arjun Manoj Purohit Ito, Ward-2(1) Room No. 25B, 6Th Arjun Niwas Padmavati Vs. Nagar, 150 Feet Road Floor, Asher It Park, Shyander (W), Thane- Road No. 16Z, Wagle 401105. Industrial Estate, Thane- 400604. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Anxpp8321K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Joshi Revenue By: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02/05/2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha (Sr. DR)
Section 133(6)Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN

Dream Valley Barter Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 7(3), Kolkata

ITA 497/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.497/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dream Valley Barter Pvt. Ltd.….…….…................…...……………....Appellant C/O Narendra Goyal & Co, 16, N.S. Road, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 1. [Pan: Aaecd1016E] Vs. Ito, Ward-7(3), Kolkata….....…..........................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Giridhar Dhelia, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 19, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 30, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.10.2023 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. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) For That The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 12,25,33,500/-Assessed By Ld. Assessing Officer (A O) Under Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act') Dated 23/03/2015 On Account Of Unexplained Cash Credit Being Share Capital & Premium U/S 68 Of The Act On Irrelevant Considerations & Arbitrary Grounds Thus The Same Be Deleted.

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

that the Ld A O erred in overlooking the explanation filed by all the subscribers of capital in pursuance to notice under section 133(6) which find no mention at all in the order. 6) For that the Ld AO erred in applying proviso to section 68, which is applicable

Mr. Zamirullah Subedarkhan Khan, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 20(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4165/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayassessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Zamirullah Ito- Ward 20(3)(5), Subedarkhan Khan Room No. 205, B.P.T., Piramal Chamber, Plot No. 262, Lalbaug, Vs. Kolsa Bunder, Mumbai- 400012 Darukhana, Reay Road, Mumbai- 400010. Pan: Aabpk9505H (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr. A.R. Date Of Hearing : 25 .04 . 2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30 .04 . 2024 O R D E R Per: Ratnesh Nandan Sahay: 1. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Appellant Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit Appeal Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [The ‘Act’ In Short] Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1056652408(1) Dated 29/9/2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Had Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring The Total Income At Rs.14,08,440/- Which Was Processed

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sr. A.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATNESH