← 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)

ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi vs. Jay Iron & Steel Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6629/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 132(1)Section 153A

order of assessment. 27. The Ld. CIT DR further argued that the learned AO during the course of assessment proceedings issued notices under section 133(6) of the Act to the subscriber companies, which was received back unserved, however, replies were received from the said companies. It was further submitted ... capital of assessee JPM group (kindly see pages 2 to 14 of AO’s Order). b) Notices were issued to investor companies under section 133(6) of the Act, however, the replies so submitted by them are not satisfactory and assessee company has failed to produce directors of investor companies

ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi vs. Jay Iron & Steel Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6628/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 132(1)Section 153A

order of assessment. 27. The Ld. CIT DR further argued that the learned AO during the course of assessment proceedings issued notices under section 133(6) of the Act to the subscriber companies, which was received back unserved, however, replies were received from the said companies. It was further submitted ... capital of assessee JPM group (kindly see pages 2 to 14 of AO’s Order). b) Notices were issued to investor companies under section 133(6) of the Act, however, the replies so submitted by them are not satisfactory and assessee company has failed to produce directors of investor companies

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Jay Auto Components Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6627/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 132(1)Section 153A

order of assessment. 27. The Ld. CIT DR further argued that the learned AO during the course of assessment proceedings issued notices under section 133(6) of the Act to the subscriber companies, which was received back unserved, however, replies were received from the said companies. It was further submitted ... capital of assessee JPM group (kindly see pages 2 to 14 of AO’s Order). b) Notices were issued to investor companies under section 133(6) of the Act, however, the replies so submitted by them are not satisfactory and assessee company has failed to produce directors of investor companies

ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi vs. Jay Iron & Steel Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6626/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 132(1)Section 153A

order of assessment. 27. The Ld. CIT DR further argued that the learned AO during the course of assessment proceedings issued notices under section 133(6) of the Act to the subscriber companies, which was received back unserved, however, replies were received from the said companies. It was further submitted ... capital of assessee JPM group (kindly see pages 2 to 14 of AO’s Order). b) Notices were issued to investor companies under section 133(6) of the Act, however, the replies so submitted by them are not satisfactory and assessee company has failed to produce directors of investor companies

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Jay Auto Components Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6625/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 132(1)Section 153A

order of assessment. 27. The Ld. CIT DR further argued that the learned AO during the course of assessment proceedings issued notices under section 133(6) of the Act to the subscriber companies, which was received back unserved, however, replies were received from the said companies. It was further submitted ... capital of assessee JPM group (kindly see pages 2 to 14 of AO’s Order). b) Notices were issued to investor companies under section 133(6) of the Act, however, the replies so submitted by them are not satisfactory and assessee company has failed to produce directors of investor companies

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Jay Auto Components Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6624/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 132(1)Section 153A

order of assessment. 27. The Ld. CIT DR further argued that the learned AO during the course of assessment proceedings issued notices under section 133(6) of the Act to the subscriber companies, which was received back unserved, however, replies were received from the said companies. It was further submitted ... capital of assessee JPM group (kindly see pages 2 to 14 of AO’s Order). b) Notices were issued to investor companies under section 133(6) of the Act, however, the replies so submitted by them are not satisfactory and assessee company has failed to produce directors of investor companies

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Jay Auto Components Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6623/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 132(1)Section 153A

order of assessment. 27. The Ld. CIT DR further argued that the learned AO during the course of assessment proceedings issued notices under section 133(6) of the Act to the subscriber companies, which was received back unserved, however, replies were received from the said companies. It was further submitted ... capital of assessee JPM group (kindly see pages 2 to 14 of AO’s Order). b) Notices were issued to investor companies under section 133(6) of the Act, however, the replies so submitted by them are not satisfactory and assessee company has failed to produce directors of investor companies

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Jay Auto Components Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 6622/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 132(1)Section 153A

order of assessment. 27. The Ld. CIT DR further argued that the learned AO during the course of assessment proceedings issued notices under section 133(6) of the Act to the subscriber companies, which was received back unserved, however, replies were received from the said companies. It was further submitted ... capital of assessee JPM group (kindly see pages 2 to 14 of AO’s Order). b) Notices were issued to investor companies under section 133(6) of the Act, however, the replies so submitted by them are not satisfactory and assessee company has failed to produce directors of investor companies

Kurele Fragrances (P) Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.5597/Del

ITA 5597/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gautam JainFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 145ASection 153A

order to verify the identity and creditworthiness of the above share applications and genuineness of the transaction, the A.O. issued notice under section 133(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961 to the above 4 ITA.No.5405/Del./2014 M/s. Kurele Pan Products (P) Ltd., Delhi And ITA.No.5597/Del./2014 M/s. Kurele

M/S. Kurele PAN Products (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.5597/Del

ITA 5405/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Dec 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Gautam JainFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, CIT-DR
Section 133(6)Section 145ASection 153A

order to verify the identity and creditworthiness of the above share applications and genuineness of the transaction, the A.O. issued notice under section 133(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961 to the above 4 ITA.No.5405/Del./2014 M/s. Kurele Pan Products (P) Ltd., Delhi And ITA.No.5597/Del./2014 M/s. Kurele

M/S. Royal Inframart Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2921/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: For Revenue : Shri Anil Gandhi, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gandhi, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 68

Rs.49,990/- per share. However, no confirmation whatsoever was filed by the assessee in respect of the share subscribers. Further notice under section 133(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961 were returned unserved with the remark by the Postal Authorities “Left or not available” . He, therefore, confronted the same

Mallika Iyengar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 512/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2017-18 Mallika Iyengar, Vs. Ito, No.405, 12Th Main, Rmv Extention, Ward – 6(3)(2), Sadhashivnagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 080. Pan : Acopi 2387 J Assessee By : Shri. K. S. Nagesh, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 12.08.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Only Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Cit(A) Was Justified On Addition Of Rs.2 Lakhs & Rs.5 Lakhs Respectively Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 3. The Assessee Is An Individual. She Is A Spinster & Lives With Her 86 Years Old Father. During The Previous Year Relevant To Assessment Year 2017- 18, The Assessee Deposited A Sum Of Rs.30 Lakhs In Cash In Her Bank A/C. The Source Of Funds For Cash Deposit To The Extent Of Rs.22 Lakhs Received From Assessee’S Father & Two Sisters Of Rs.13 Lakhs, Rs.4 Lakhs & Rs.5 Lakhs Was Accepted By The Ao. The Ao Did Not Accept The Explanation Of Source Of Cash Page 2 Of 5

For Appellant: Shri. K. S. Nagesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 133(6)Section 68

less than Rs.3 lakhs given to the assessee (b) HUF did not give any reply to the AO’s notice dated 30.10.2016 under section 133(6) of the Act; (c) assessee did not prove that cash was given to the assessee as gratis. 6. Before CIT(A), the assessee pointed ... that HUF had given reply on 13.11.2019 to notice of AO under section 133(6) of the Act affirming giving of Rs.3 lakhs to the assessee and furnishing Income Tax Returns for Assessment Years 2016-17 to 2019-20. The assessee pointed out that the AO presumed that Rs.3 lakhs

Sohiab, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 63(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 3863/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Srf Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6620/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Kuldip Singh(Through Video Conferencing) Srf Limited Vs. Acit The Galleria, Dlf Mayur Circle – 1, Vihar, Unit No.236 & 237, Ltu 2Nd Floor, Mayur Place, New Delhi Noida Link Road, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, Extension, Delhi-110 091 Pan : Aaacs 0206 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pradeep Dinodia, C.A. Revenue By Ms. Meera Srivastava, Cit-D.R. Date Of Hearing: 16.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.12.2021 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am :

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘I-2’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

M/S. Paras Spares & Accessories Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2066/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Dec 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2009-10] M/S Paras Spares & Ito, Accessories Ltd. Ward No.19(3), B-1/126, 2Nd Floor, New Delhi New Ashok Nagar, (Near Metro Pillar No.166), New Delhi-110096 Pan- Aadcp2321D Assessee Revenue

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 14ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “F” BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI R.K.PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Mapsa Tapes Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

ITA 3539/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri C. S. AggarwalFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153C

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR

M/S R.K. Jain Infra Projects P Ltd, Delhi vs. Pr Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-7, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 823/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, C. AFor Respondent: Shri T. Kipgen [CIT] – D. R
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. He further observed that the Assessing Officer should have conducted enquiry under Section 133(6) of the Act from these parties and in absence of such enquiry it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer has made any adequate ... completed. Because then they are shifted to other projects. It was in these circumstances and peculiar business of the assessee, notice under Section 133(6) could not have been complied with. This was also explained before the ld. PCIT. Still without any adverse material on record or he himself conducting

Anita Khatri, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-39(5), New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are

ITA 98/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Anita Khatri, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-39(5), New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are

ITA 97/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Davinder Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-40(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 3587/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. D.R
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 54

valuation report dated 25.12.2012 was also rejected by the A.O. in absence of any explanation from the Valuer in response to notice under section 133(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961 regarding the basis of his valuation. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the A.O. in view