SAFE AND SURE MARINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 8(1)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4522/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 December 2025Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)4 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee repeatedly failed to appear and cooperate. The CIT(A)'s findings were upheld as no new evidence was presented to rebut them. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged an order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee did not appear for hearings despite notices. The Assessing Officer made disallowances under section 36(1)(iii) for diverting interest-bearing funds as interest-free loans to related parties.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)'s order can be sustained when the assessee failed to appear and present their case, and whether the disallowance for diversion of interest-bearing funds was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 36(1)(iii)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN& SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna (CIT-DR)
Hearing: 01.12.2025Pronounced: 03.12.2025

आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 1. ��थ� / The Respondent. 2. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / The CIT(A) 3. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / Concerned CIT 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,मु�बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6.

आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, स�ािपत �ित //True Copy//

1.

उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु�बई मु�बई / ITAT, Mumbai मु�बई मु�बई

More judgments on Section 36(1)(iii)

All 3,665 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →