← 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)

Global Stainless, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-34(1), Delhi

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3990/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Global Stainless, Vs. Acit, 17, Meera Tower, Ground Floor, Circle-34(1), Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi. New Delhi – 110 052. Pan: Aajfg7209G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Amol Sinha, Advocate & Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Manish Gupta, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2026 Order Per Madhumita Roy:

For Appellant: Shri Amol Sinha, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 136Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

were furnished. Therefore, according to the Ld. AO the loans are not proved to be confirmed by these parties and inquiries conducted under Section 133(6) of the Act did not yield any result which proves unexplainable nature of these two parties’ loan as against other parties in whose case

DCIT, Circle- 19(1), Delhi vs. Pashupati Road Carrier Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

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

ITA 2490/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumardcit, Circle 19(1), Vs. Pashupati Road Carrier Delhi Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 221, 2Nd Floor, Plot No. 70A/47, Ground C.R. Building, Floor, Moti Nagar, I.P. Estate, New Delhi – 110 002 Rama Road Indl. Area, New Delhi – 110 045 (Pan: Aadcp8319H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Baldev Raj, Ca & Sh. Manish Upneja, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2026 Date Of Order : 20.03.2026 O R D E R Per Sudhir Kumar, Jm :

For Appellant: Sh. Baldev Raj, CA & Sh. Manish UpnejaFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Alaina Bullions Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 916/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2017-18] M/S Alaina Buillions Private Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle, 1St Floor, Panna Bhawan, Nel Ghaziabad, Room No.229, 2Nd Vs Gali, Sarafa Bazar, Meerut, Floor, Cgo-1, Hapur Chungi, Uttar Pradesh-250002 Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201002 Pan-Aanca8659D Appellant Respondent

Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH

ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Alaina Bullions Private Limited, Meerut

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1461/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2017-18] M/S Alaina Buillions Private Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle, 1St Floor, Panna Bhawan, Nel Ghaziabad, Room No.229, 2Nd Vs Gali, Sarafa Bazar, Meerut, Floor, Cgo-1, Hapur Chungi, Uttar Pradesh-250002 Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201002 Pan-Aanca8659D Appellant Respondent

Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH

ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Alaina Bullions Private Limited, Meerut

In the result, appeals of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1460/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2017-18] M/S Alaina Buillions Private Assistant Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle, 1St Floor, Panna Bhawan, Nel Ghaziabad, Room No.229, 2Nd Vs Gali, Sarafa Bazar, Meerut, Floor, Cgo-1, Hapur Chungi, Uttar Pradesh-250002 Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201002 Pan-Aanca8659D Appellant Respondent

Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH

Techpark Hotels Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. Addi. CIT Special Range-9, New Delhi

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

ITA 9450/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumartechpark Hotels Pvt. Ltd., Addl. Cit, Ground Floor, Central Wing, Special Range-9, Thapar House 124, Janpath, Vs. New Delhi. New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aabce5833H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Shri Tavish Verma, Adv. Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra Sr. Dr Department By Date Of Hearing 20.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026 O R D E R Per Vimal Kumar, Jm: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against Order Dated 11.09.2019 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), New Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2017 Of The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Return Declaring Loss Of Rs.23,06,28,106/- On 30.11.2015. Notice U/S 143(2) Dated 22.09.2016 Was Issued. Notices U/S 142(1) Were Issued. Sh. Nikhil Agarwal & Shri Nirmal Malpani, Ca Appeared & Filed Details. On Completion Of Proceedings, Ld. Ao Vide Order Dated Techpark Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234DSection 250Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(viib)

substance of receiving a high premium is not justified. 11. We note that in the instant case, the AO had issued notice under Section 133(6) to all the investors to seek confirmation, information and documents pertaining to the issuance of shares. Further, the venture agreement between the Respondent-Assessee

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. M/S Fortune Metals Ltd., Ludhiana

Appeal stand dismissed

ITA 961/CHANDI/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.961/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) Dcit (Central Cricle -1) M/S Fortune Metals Ltd. बनाम/ Sco 1-6, 2Nd Floor, Opp. Circuit House, Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana Vs. (Punjab) - 141001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacf-8508-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. Co. No.36/Chandi/2025 [In Ita No.961/Chandi/2025] (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23) M/S Fortune Metals Ltd. Dcit (Central Cricle -1) बनाम/ Opp. Circuit House, Sco 1-6, 2Nd Floor, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana Vs. (Punjab) - 141001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacf-8508-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11-03-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 19-03-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 251(2)Section 69C

ITA No. 961/Chd./2025 CO No.36/Chd./2025 Assessment Year: 2022-23 M/s Fortune Metals Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

H K Ispat Pvt. Ltd., Panchmahal vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

ITA 1392/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

Section 250Section 68

concerns regarding the veracity of source of income in hands of lender, he ought to have issued requisite notice as per provision of section 133(6) of the Act, which AO has not made. (iv) The appellant submitted that there is no clinching evidence with the Assessing officer in order ... However, based upon the evidences submitted by the assessee, the Assessing Officer has not made any independent inquiries, such as issuing notices under Section 133(6) or summons under Section 131, to verify the contents of the confirmations. It is beyond our comprehension to believe that the Revenue can treat

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara vs. Hk Ispat Pvt Ltd, Godhra

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

ITA 1278/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

Section 250Section 68

concerns regarding the veracity of source of income in hands of lender, he ought to have issued requisite notice as per provision of section 133(6) of the Act, which AO has not made. (iv) The appellant submitted that there is no clinching evidence with the Assessing officer in order ... However, based upon the evidences submitted by the assessee, the Assessing Officer has not made any independent inquiries, such as issuing notices under Section 133(6) or summons under Section 131, to verify the contents of the confirmations. It is beyond our comprehension to believe that the Revenue can treat

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Vadodara vs. Hk Ispat Pvt Ltd, Godhra

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue for AYs 2014–15 to 2021–

ITA 1277/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblesn

Section 250Section 68

concerns regarding the veracity of source of income in hands of lender, he ought to have issued requisite notice as per provision of section 133(6) of the Act, which AO has not made. (iv) The appellant submitted that there is no clinching evidence with the Assessing officer in order ... However, based upon the evidences submitted by the assessee, the Assessing Officer has not made any independent inquiries, such as issuing notices under Section 133(6) or summons under Section 131, to verify the contents of the confirmations. It is beyond our comprehension to believe that the Revenue can treat

Tulajabhavani Mahila Gra Sah Path Sansta Mary., Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Kolhapur

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

ITA 192/PUN/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.192/Pun/2026 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Tulajabhavani Mahila Gra Sah Vs. Income Tax Officer, Pathsansta Mary Ward-1(1), Kolhapur Kodoli, At Post Kodoli, Tal. Panhala, Kolhapur-416114 Maharashtra Pan : Aabat4234H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.192/PUN/2026

Parth Buildcon, Gandhinagar vs. NFAC, Delhi, Juris. AO-the ACIT, Circle-Gandhinagar, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 1062/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Tr Senthil Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Karan Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT. DR
Section 133(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT SHRI TR SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL

Mr. Sharafat Sohrab Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 26(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 8014/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Sharafat Sohrab Shaikh Vs Income Tax Officer, Room No. 1210, Sangam Ward 26(3)(2), Nagar, Chikhalwadi Saltpent Mumbai Road, Antop Hill Wadala East, Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400037 (Pan: Bfbps0696P) Appellant Respondent Present For: Assessee By : Shri Sachin Dere, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Pradipsinh Saktavat, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.03.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1058553234(1) Dated 07.12.2023 Passed Against The Assessment Order By Ward 26(3)(2), Mumbai, U/S. 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 23.12.2019 For Ay 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Appellant By Way Of The Aforesaid Appeal Is Challenging The Legality & Validity Of The Impugned Order Dated 7Th December, 2023 Passed By The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department For A.Y.: 2017-2018. 2 Sharafat Sohrab Shaikh Ay 2017-18 2. The Appellant Is Actively Involved In The Operation & Management Of A Grahak Seva Kendra (Customer Service Center), Which Is Provided By M/S. Vakrangee Limited To The Eligible Candidate Who Meets The Prescribed Eligibility Criteria Set Forth By The Company. The Said M/S. Vakrangi Limited Has Issued The Appellant Official Certification To Carry Out & Run The Grahak Seva Kendra & Its Activities As Per The Terms & Conditions Decided By The Said M/S. Vakrangi Limited.

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Dere, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradipsinh Saktavat, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

ACIT-17(1), Mumbai vs. Sunil Giridhar Raheja HUF, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7560/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Arun Khodpia ()

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ACIT22(1), Mumbai vs. Unique Bangles, Mumbai

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

ITA 7427/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaracit-22(1) Unique Bangles, 322, Piramal 232/234, Shah & Chambers, Mumbai – Vs. Nahar Industrial 400 013. Estate, S. J. Mar, Dhanraj Mill Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400019 Pan/Gir No. Aadfu8125A (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Vivek Perampurna, Ld. Dr Assessee By Shri Subhash Chhajed & Shri Sunil Vankawala, Ld. Ars Date Of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.03.2026

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 68

returns and other documents of the loan creditors. The CIT(A) further observed that the Assessing Officer had not issued notices under section 133(6) to the creditors nor conducted any independent verification of the documents furnished by the assessee. In the absence of any adverse material brought on record ... case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was correct in law in shifting the burden to the AO for issuing notice under section 133(6), even though the initial onus to 7 Unique Bangles substantiate the cash credits under section 68 lies entirely with the assessee. 5. The appellant craves

ACIT, Circle -20(1), Mumbai vs. Utkarsha Vivek Parkar, Mumbai

In the result appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6513/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaracit Circle-20(1), Utkarsha Vivek Mumbai Parkar, Room No. 305, 3Rd Vs. 108, A-Wing, Byculla Floor, Piramal Service Industrial Chambers, Parel, Estate, D. K. Cross Mumbai – 400 012. Road, Byculla, Mumbai-400 027 Pan/Gir No. Agjpp4377J (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Nayanjyoti Nath, Ld. Dr Assessee By Ms. Dinkle Hariya, Ld. Ar Date Of Hearing 11.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.03.2026

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69C

stock register entries evidencing receipt of goods. In order to verify the genuineness of the purchases, the Assessing Officer issued notices under section 133(6) to the said suppliers. However, the notices were returned by the postal authorities with remarks such as “Left” and “Not Known”, and the Inspector deputed ... substantiate the genuineness of the purchases. According to the Assessing Officer, the assessee failed to produce the parties and the notices issued under section 133(6) remained unserved. On this basis, the Assessing Officer concluded that the purchases were not proved and proceeded to disallow the entire purchases amounting

Rbz Jewellers Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 61/AHD/2026[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri C Dharani Nath, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

suppliers and that payments had been made through banking channels. It was also submitted that the Assessing Officer had issued notices under section 133(6) of the Act to the parties but the notices were sent to an incorrect branch and therefore no response was received. After considering the submissions ... However, while granting partial relief, the CIT(Appeals) himself recorded a finding that the notices issued by the Assessing Officer under section 133(6) of the Act were sent to a different branch of the supplier instead of the branch with which the assessee had actually carried out the transactions

Imrankhan Ismail Pathan, Dhule vs. ITO Ward 1, Dhule

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

ITA 1091/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1091/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Imrankhan Ismail Pathan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.11, Ward-1, Dhule Mohammadi Nagar, Jaihind Colony, Deopur, Dhule – 424 002 Maharashtra Pan : Anepp8171C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath
Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL

Dugginnigari Subramaniyam Naidu, Tirupati vs. ACIT., Circle - 1(1), Tirupati

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

ITA 1443/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. AO.

Section 133(6)Section 68

account is considered in the hands of HUF. The A.O., after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee, had issued a notice under Section 133(6) of the Act, dated 25-11-2019, to the Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Tirupati, requiring him to furnish the details with regard

Shilpa Shetty Kundra, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes, in the above terms

ITA 996/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Dhawan, Adv. & RaviFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (SR. D.R.)
Section 133(6)Section 194CSection 250

Assessee’s husband at the fag end of the assessment proceedings and therefore, the AO was unable to carry out proper enquiries under Section 133(6) of the Act. Further it is also a fact that before both the authorities below, the Assessee despite being asked specifically, failed to file