“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)

Brahmaputra Infraprojects Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 4123/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Agarwal, Adv

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

account of purchases related to infra projects. Assessee was required to establish identity, creditworthiness of the vendors. Notices were also issued under section 133(6) of the Act to vendors by the Assessing Officer. Some of the vendors have also responded to the notices issued under section 133(6

Brahamputra Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 4122/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Agarwal, Adv

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

Brahmaputra Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 4121/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Agarwal, Adv

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

Brahamputra Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 4120/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Agarwal, Adv

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

Brahmaputra Infraprojects Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 4119/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Agarwal, Adv

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

Brahamputra Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 4118/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Agarwal, Adv

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

Brahamputra Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 4117/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Agarwal, Adv

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

Naftogaz Construction Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 29, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7494/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Department by: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DRFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153A

1 7494/Del/2017 Naftogaz construction Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Central Plastics Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

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

ITA 65/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Kabra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Lal Verma, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘B’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI ANUBHAV

Satyaprakash Maruti Prasad Sharma, Mumbai vs. ACIT-20(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 298/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.298/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Satyaprakash Maruti Prasad बिधम/ Acit-20(3) Sharma R. No. 615, 6Th Floor, Vs. 55/4, Rishikesh Bhawan, Piramal Chambers, Aai Mai Merwanji Street, Lalbaug, Mumbai- Parel, Mumbai-400012. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aljps5054L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punamiya Revenue By: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/04/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 10.01.2023 Passed For Ay 2010-11. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Of Rs.41,79,889/- On Account Of Bogus Purchases. 3. Brief Facts As Noted By The Ao Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Engaged In The Business As Works Contractor (For Supply Of Display Counters By Making It At The Site Of Customer). The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income On 12.10.2010 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.34,12,777/- Which Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). Later, An Information Was Received From The Office Of Dgit(Inv.), Mumbai That The Assessee Was Engaged In Showing Bogus Purchases & Is A Beneficiary Of Such Transaction. The Ao Has Taken Note Of Fifteen (15) Parties From Whom It Was Alleged

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunamiyaFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Kundan Jewellers Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 1035/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Circle – 2(1)(1) Vs. M/S. Kundan Jewellers Room No. 561, 5Th Floor Pvt Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, Mk 223, Sm Patil Bldg, Sv Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400058. Pan/Gir No. : Aabck5770H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Nihar Ranjan Samal.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Siddharth Kothari.Ar Date Of Hearing 19.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29 .05.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Cit(A), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Nihar Ranjan Samal.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Siddharth Kothari.AR

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL

ITO, Ward- 2(4), Faridabad vs. Srishti Tracon Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad

ITA 7272/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Gourav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dohre, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR

DCIT, Circle- 3(1), New Delhi vs. Arihant Unitech Realty Project Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 6941/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.6940 & 6941/Del/2018 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2013-14 & 2014-15 बनाम Dcit Arihant Unitech Realty Project Circle 3(1) Vs. Ltd. New Delhi. Basement & Community Centre, Saket, New Delhi. Pan No. Aafca6188H अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 37(1)Section 46A

I.T.A. Nos. 6940 & 6941/Del/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA

DCIT, Circle- 3(1), New Delhi vs. Arihant Unitech Realty Project Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 6940/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2013-14

Section 37(1)Section 46A

I.T.A. Nos. 6940 & 6941/Del/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA

Shri Bhavesh Bhuva, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3)(1), Surat

In the result, ground No. 2(i) of the appeal is allowed

ITA 235/SRT/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.235/Srt/2022 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Bhavesh Bhuva Income Tax Officer, C-51, Khodiyar Nagar Ward-3(3)(1), Surat, Income Vs Society, Nr. Chikoo Tax Office, Aaykar Bhavan, Wadi, Nana Varachha, Anavil Business Centre, Surat-395006 Hazira Road, Adajan, Pan No: Antpb 8989 P Surat-395007 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Ms. Chaitali Shah, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 25.05.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 29.05.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 10.06.2022 For Assessment Year 2012-13, Which In Turn Arises From The Addition Made By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Surat / Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 26.11.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- Bhavesh Bhuva “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Has Grossly Erred In Passing The Impugned Appellate Order On An Ex-Parte Basis, By Erroneously Holding That The Appellant Is Not Interested In Pursuing The Appeal, When The Fact Is That The Appellant Has Made Detailed Submissions In Form No.35 Itself, Which Ought To Have Been Considered By The Learned Cit(A), Nfac While Passing The Impugned Order. Therefore, The Appellate Order Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Being Passed On An Ex-Parte Basis, Needs To Be Quashed As Being Erroneous, Illegal & Bad-In-Law.

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69

with ICICI Bank. The assessee has not filed his Return of Income for assessment year 2012-13. The assessing officer issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act to assessee for furnishing necessary details about such deposit. The Assessing Officer recorded that assessee has not responded to such notice ... Revenue supported the order of lower authorities and submits that before re- opening assessment Assessing Officer issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act for explaining the source of such credit but assessee not responded against such notice. The assessee has not disclosed his source of credit

5Th Element Digital Media Solutions Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-9(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 624/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das

Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

claim of the genuineness of the credits on account of sales of services to Indian clients. The AO also issued notice under section 133(6) of the Act to three parties from whom the assessee has claimed to have received advances. However, the said notice issued under section 133(6 ... returned unserved from all three parties. Notices under section 133(6) of the Act were also issued to the banks, wherein the assessee was maintaining its accounts, requesting them to provide the bank statements of all the accounts standing in the name of the assessee along with the details

Smt. Ushaben Varma, Jamnagar vs. The Pr. CIT, Jamnagar

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

ITA 69/RJT/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot26 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (Conducted Through Virtual Court) Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And

Vijay Hiralal Rajput, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(9) Old/ 3(2)(6) New, Surat

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

ITA 96/SRT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)

proceeded for re-assessment. The Assessing Officer on the basis of information gathered from ADIT(Inv.), Unit-2, Varanasi issued notice under section 133(6) to the bankers of the assessee. The bankers of the assessee responded to the notice of Assessing Officer and provided the required details

Fancy Diamonds India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. N F Ass C / DCIT-5(1)(1) (Current Juridiction), Mumbai

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 728/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms. Padmavathy Sfancy Diamonds India Nfassc/Dcit-5(1)(1), Pvt.Ltd., 52, Sidhpura Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Industrial Estate, 2Nd M.K.Road, Vs. Floor, Gaik Wadi, Mumbai-400020. S V Road, Goregaon, Mumbai-400062. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacf3325J (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi.Ar ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Smt.Vranda U Matkarni.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 23/05/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 25/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Pavan Kumar Gadale - Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- 1. "On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Law, The Ld.Cit Erred In Confirming Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.10,000/- Under Section 272A(1)(D) Of Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 Fancy Diamonds India Pvt.Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi.ARFor Respondent: Smt.Vranda U Matkarni.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271A(1)(d)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 41(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

Mukesh Vinodkumar Singh, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 2(5). Thane, Mumbai

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

ITA 38/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 May 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.38/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Mukesh Vinodkumar Singh बिधम/ Ito-2(5), Thane Gala No. 5 Saisneha Cit/Nfac. Vs. Industrial Estate Near Ekvira Gas Godown Bhayander (E), Mumbai- 401105. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Bmpps6780N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri D. C. Saboo & Shyam Saboo Revenue By: Shri Anil Gupta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 02/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/05/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 29.11.2022 For Ay. 2009-10. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao By Making Addition Of 100% Alleged Bogus Purchases While Accepting The Sales Shown By The Assessee. 3. Brief Facts As Noted By The Ao Is That The Assessee Had Filed Roi Declaring Total Income At Rs.3,99,174/- On 29.09.2009 For Ay. 2009-10 Which Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”). Later, The Ao Received An Information From The Maharashtra Sales Tax Department, Mumbai That Certain Persons Were Providing Accommodation Entries/Bills To Facilitate Beneficiaries Like Assessee To Book Bogus Purchases In The Books Without Actual

For Appellant: Shri D. C. Saboo & Shyam SabooFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.38/Mum/2023