RAJ GEMS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, 19(3), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2555/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 September 2026AY 2018-199 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the submissions and evidence provided by the assessee to both the AO and CIT(A) were either not considered or not properly appreciated. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a foreign exchange loss of Rs. 94,15,546/- arising from the conversion of outstanding debtors at the closing rate as per ICDS. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this claim due to a lack of documentary evidence, and the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of foreign exchange loss was justified without properly considering the assessee's submissions and evidence, and whether the principles of natural justice were followed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 43AA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Vaidyalingan, AR
For Respondent: Shri Mahesh Londhe, Sr. DR
Hearing: 03.08.2026Pronounced: 07.09.2026

आदेश की प्रतितलति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, 4. Mumbai

P a g e | 9 ITA No. 2555/Mum/2026 A.Y. 2018-19 Raj Gems 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यावपि प्रवि //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीलीय अतिकरण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai.

More judgments on Section 43AA

All 32 judgments and leading authorities on Section 43AA →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →