← 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)

Shri Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Korba, Korba(Cg) vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Korba, Korba(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assesee in ITA No

ITA 94/BIL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 93 & 94/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Of M/S. Shrikishan & Co., T.P Nagar, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Acgpa4350B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Y.K Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C Roy, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 40Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH

Shri Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Korba, Korba(Cg) vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Korba, Korba(Cg)

In the result, appeal of the assesee in ITA No

ITA 93/BIL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 93 & 94/Rpr/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Sushil Kumar Agrawal, Prop. Of M/S. Shrikishan & Co., T.P Nagar, Korba (C.G.) Pan : Acgpa4350B .......अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Korba (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Y.K Mishra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C Roy, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 40Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH

Umano Healthcare Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-27(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 3256/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Pratap Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

revenue expenditure. This amount was added back to the income of the assessee under section 37(1) of the Act. 6. Letter under section 133(6) sent by the Ld. AO to AFFY Pharma Pvt. Ltd. (sundry creditor) in whose name Rs. 10,08,708/- was outstanding was not replied ... satisfactory. Doubting the assessee’s claim the Ld. AO added the same to the income of the assessee. 7. Likewise, letters under section 133(6) were issued by the Ld. AO to Anand Pharma and Gupta Medicos India Pvt. Ltd. (sundry debtors) to whom assessee has sold medicines

M/S. Fazal Frozen Food (P) Ltd., Meerut vs. JCIT, Meerut

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6009/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

Section 133(6)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 41

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. ASTHA

Jagdish Gurjar, Bhilwara vs. ACIT, Circle, Bhilwara

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 93/JODH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur23 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Borad93/Jodh/2019 (Assessment Year- 2014-15) Vs Shri Jagdish Gurjar The Acit Bavala Ka Khera, Hurda Circle Gulabpura, Bhilwara Bhilwara (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No.Anmpg 6556 C

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT

DCIT, Central Circle-1, Noida vs. Aashikyana Civil Contractors P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9025/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 250(4)Section 68

note that the learned assessing officer in order to examine the identity, creditworthiness and [genuineness of the transactions can also issue notices/summon under section 133(6) /131 of the Income tax Act, 1961 to the lenders calling for relevant details / documents / explanations. However, the Id. AO even failed ... regard to said entities. 1.23 It is pertinent to note in a case where such information as required under the provisions of section 133(6)/131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has not been asked for from the person concerned, it is not open to the learned assessing officer

P P Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 25, New Delhi

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

ITA 6931/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usi.T.A. No. 6332/Del/2017 (A.Y 2011-12) P P Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, H-5, Netaji Subhash Place, Central Circle : 25, Pitampura, Delhi – 110 034. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacp0874G & I.T.A. No. 6529/Del/2017 (A.Y 2011-12) Acit, Vs. P P Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle : 25, H-5, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi. Pitampura, Delhi – 110 034. Pan No. Aaacp0874G & I.T.A. No. 6931/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14) P P Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, H-5, Netaji Subhash Place, Central Circle : 25, Pitampura, Delhi – 110 034. New Delhi. (Respondents) Pan No. Aaacp0874G (Appellants)

For Appellant: Shri R. R. Singla, C. AFor Respondent: Shri K. K. Mishra, Sr. D. R
Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [DELHI BENCH: “F” NEW DELHI ] BEFORE DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

DCIT, Central Circle- 25, New Delhi vs. P P Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

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

ITA 6529/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usi.T.A. No. 6332/Del/2017 (A.Y 2011-12) P P Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, H-5, Netaji Subhash Place, Central Circle : 25, Pitampura, Delhi – 110 034. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacp0874G & I.T.A. No. 6529/Del/2017 (A.Y 2011-12) Acit, Vs. P P Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle : 25, H-5, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi. Pitampura, Delhi – 110 034. Pan No. Aaacp0874G & I.T.A. No. 6931/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14) P P Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, H-5, Netaji Subhash Place, Central Circle : 25, Pitampura, Delhi – 110 034. New Delhi. (Respondents) Pan No. Aaacp0874G (Appellants)

For Appellant: Shri R. R. Singla, C. AFor Respondent: Shri K. K. Mishra, Sr. D. R
Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [DELHI BENCH: “F” NEW DELHI ] BEFORE DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

P P Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 25, New Delhi

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

ITA 6332/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar Usi.T.A. No. 6332/Del/2017 (A.Y 2011-12) P P Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, H-5, Netaji Subhash Place, Central Circle : 25, Pitampura, Delhi – 110 034. New Delhi. Pan No. Aaacp0874G & I.T.A. No. 6529/Del/2017 (A.Y 2011-12) Acit, Vs. P P Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle : 25, H-5, Netaji Subhash Place, New Delhi. Pitampura, Delhi – 110 034. Pan No. Aaacp0874G & I.T.A. No. 6931/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14) P P Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, H-5, Netaji Subhash Place, Central Circle : 25, Pitampura, Delhi – 110 034. New Delhi. (Respondents) Pan No. Aaacp0874G (Appellants)

For Appellant: Shri R. R. Singla, C. AFor Respondent: Shri K. K. Mishra, Sr. D. R
Section 132(4)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [DELHI BENCH: “F” NEW DELHI ] BEFORE DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Akhand Associates, Sikar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sikar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 386/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Jhanwar (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Kanchan Plastics Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Asmnt Circle-2(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 198/CTK/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack22 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2017-18 Kanchan Plastics Pvt Ltd., Kanchan Plastics Pvt Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Asmnt Circle Dcit, Asmnt Circle-2(1), 222, Banka Bazar, Cuttack 222, Banka Bazar, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No. (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohit Sheth, Ar Mohit Sheth, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Mohit Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 133(6)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH

Punjab National Bank, Jodhpur vs. ITO, (TDS)(II), Jodhpur

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

ITA 250/JODH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatshri Manish Boradpunjab National Bank, Vs Ito, R.R. Singhvi, Advocate, Tds (Ii), “Rajhans” 1St A Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Jdhpo2161F Assessee By None Revenue By Shri S.M.Joshi, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 20/03/2023 Date Of 21/03/2023 Pronouncement

Section 10Section 11Section 194ASection 197ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 271C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ACIT Circle-9(1), New Delhi vs. Fauji Exim Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3661/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Bansal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

details of purchases and expenses which were duly furnished by the assessee vide its letter dated 21.10.2016. The Ld. AO issued notice under section 133(6) dated 24.10.2016 to 14 parties in order to verify the genuineness of these transactions. Out of the 14 parties the Ld. AO received reply ... assessee during the assessment proceedings to which the assessee replied that the status of these parties for their reply to notice under section 133(6) is not known. In the absence of confirmation received from the above 3 parties the Ld. AO concluded that the assessee has not made

Sunil Kumar Garg, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 36(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3182/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Sabharwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 41Section 41(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘B’ : NEW DELHI) SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and MS. ASTHA CHANDRA

Jacobinia Laboratories P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 536/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. N.K Choudhryjacobinia Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward-10(1), 21-Cottage Enclave, Paschim New Delhi 110001 Vihar, Rohtak Road, New Delhi 110063 Pan No. Aagcg 3024 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Revenue By Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.03.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.11.2018 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4,New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :-

Section 143(3)Section 197Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K

Sabbarapu Narayana Rao, Kakinada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

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

ITA 217/VIZ/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Sri G.V.N. Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri ON Hari Prasada Rao
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 69A

आयकरअपील"यअ"धकरण, "वशाखापटणमपीठ, "वशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM "ीदु"वू"आरएलरे"डी, "या"यकसद

Sai Petroleum, Surat vs. Pr.CIT, -1, Surat

In the result, grounds no

ITA 116/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.116/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) Sai Petroleum Principal Commissioner Of 381, Survey No.415, Sachin, Income-Tax-1, Rom 123, Vs Surat-394230 Aayakhar Bhawan, Majura Pan No: Achfs 8318 Q Gate, Surat-395001 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Ketan S. Jagirdar, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 16.03.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 17.03.2023 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 15.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18, Which In Turn Arises From The Addition Made By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(4), Surat / Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1) The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming Ads Made By Ld. Ao As Per Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act. Sai Petroleum I. Addition U/S 68 R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act Amounting To Rs.13,65,241 As Unreconciled Cash Deposited In Bank Accounted As Cash Sales During Demonetization Period. Ii. Addition U/S 68 Of The Act Amounting To Rs.10,00,000 Received From Debtors As Unaccounted Cash Deposited In Bank During Demonetization Period.

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 68

Petroleum furnished their ledger accounts. In order to verify the genuineness of such claim, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 133(6) to Swastik Transport Udhana and Swastik Logistics Udhna. 5. Both the entities furnished their respective ledger accounts with the assessee. On perusal of ledger accounts of Swastik ... book of Swastik Transport Service Udhna no such payment was appearing. As per the information furnished, in response to notice under section 133(6). Further as per ledger account of Swastik Transport Service Udhna, they have paid Rs. 16,000/- on nineteen times i.e., total of Rs.3.04 lakhs from

DCIT, CC-15, New Delhi vs. Bdr Builders & Developers P. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1177/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usasstt. Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Vs. Bdr Builders & Developers P. Ltd,B- Central Circle-15, 393, Zakir Nagar So, South East Delhi, New Delhi New Delhi-1100025 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.03.2023

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 68

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHIBENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Yogesh Kumar

DCIT Circle-20(1), New Delhi vs. Priytam Plaschem P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6038/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6038/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Dcit, Vs M/S Priyatam Plaschem Pvt. Ltd., Circle-20(1), X-53, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi-110002 Phase-Ii, New Delhi-110020 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp4629G Assessee By : Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Meenakshi Dohore, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 03.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 16.03.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dohore, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 68Section 69C

were issued at a premium of ₹1,190/-. A Notice was issued to the investor M/s Mekastar Finlease Pvt. Ltd. under Section 133(6). The share applicant confirmed the transaction together with its ITR and other relevant documents such as bank statements ... affirmed. 4. In this case, the assessee had provided the details of the investor; a survey enquiry pursuant to Section 133(6) was carried out. That the investor M/s Mekastar Finlease Pvt. Ltd. was genuine stood established; it had resources to the tune of ₹300 crores. The only ground

Bhatia Energy and Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 259/RPR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur16 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 259/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Bhatia Energy & Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Near Bank Of India, Dayalband, Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan : Aadcb8992N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 250Section 68

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH