SODEXO INDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. 13(2)(2), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1639/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 September 2025AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON'BLE (Vice President), SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Regarding Ground No. 1, the Tribunal restored the issue of addition to the file of the AO for verification of the correct amount, as incorrect figures were used. For Ground No. 2, the Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance under section 43B to the AO for re-examination based on correct figures.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2018-19. The assessee's grievances included confirmation of an addition of Rs. 6,65,98,940/- by the AO and disallowance of Rs. 9,49,12,424/- for payments allegedly made after the due date as per section 43B of the Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions/disallowances made by the AO were based on correct figures, and whether the disallowance under section 43B was correctly applied.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 43B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar, A/R
Hearing: 17/09/2025Pronounced: 22/09/2025

Assessee by : Shri Bharat Kumar, A/R Revenue by : Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT D/R सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 17/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 22/09/2025 आदेश/O R D E R

PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A)/Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Delhi [hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT(A)’] dated 21/10/2014 pertaining to AY 2018-19.

2.

The grievance of the assessee reads as under:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by Id. AO amounting to Rs. 6,65,98,940/-, subject to verification by Id. AO of an amount of Rs. 1,11,97,810/-, for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order or otherwise. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in passing the impugned order without taking cognizance of additional grounds of appeal

filed by the appellant during the course of Appellate proceedings. The said ground pertains to disallowance made by Id. AO amounting to Rs. 9,49,12,424/- on account of payments allegedly made after the due date of ROI as per the section 43B of the Act.

3. The appellant reserves rights to add, alter or delete any portion of this appeal before its conclusion.”

More judgments on Section 43B

All 7,161 judgments and leading authorities on Section 43B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →