DY. COMMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. KAMLASHMI REALITIES, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5022/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 August 2026AY 2013-1410 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered by previous decisions of coordinate benches, specifically citing the case of Kamla Landmarc Enterprises. The Ld. CIT(A) had deleted the additions because the principal amount of the loans had already been deleted by the Tribunal in earlier proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) reasoned that if the principal loans were deemed non-genuine accommodation entries and deleted, then the corresponding disallowance of interest in subsequent years could not be sustained. The Tribunal found no new facts or circumstances presented by the Revenue to controvert the Ld. CIT(A)'s findings and therefore upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal saw no reason to interfere with the Ld. CIT(A)'s findings.

What were the facts?

This judgment concerns 18 appeals filed by the Revenue (Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax) against orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-51, Mumbai. The assessment years involved are primarily 2013-14 and 2014-15, with one appeal for 2009-10. The appeals challenge the deletion of additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of disallowance of interest expenditure on alleged bogus unsecured loans. The core of the dispute revolves around whether the interest on loans, which were purportedly accommodation entries, should be disallowed. The Revenue's appeals are consolidated due to common and identical issues.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 31,34,294 made by the AO on account of disallowance of interest expenditure on bogus unsecured loans, holding that the loans were accommodation entries not incurred for business purposes? (Question of law and fact, relating to Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: The addition was made based on statements recorded from Shri Jitendra Jain, Shri Yogendra Raj Singhui, and Shri Abhishek Indulal Jain. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts of the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

For Respondent: Shri Bharat Kumar
Pronounced: 20.08.2026

Heard together (18 matters)

ITA 1743/MUM/2026
ITA 1839/MUM/2026
ITA 1904/MUM/2026
ITA 1905/MUM/2026
ITA 5016/MUM/2026
ITA 5018/MUM/2026
ITA 5022/MUM/2026
ITA 5027/MUM/2026
ITA 5029/MUM/2026
ITA 5033/MUM/2026
ITA 5034/MUM/2026
ITA 5040/MUM/2026
ITA 5041/MUM/2026
ITA 5043/MUM/2026
ITA 6063/MUM/2026
ITA 6068/MUM/2026
ITA 6069/MUM/2026
ITA 6071/MUM/2026

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

These appeals, being a group of 18 appeals, have been filed by the Department against the orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-51, Mumbai, dated 19.12.2025 for A.Y. 2013-14, 18.12.2025 for A.Y. 2013-14, 19.12.2025 for A.Y. 2013-14, 19.12.2025 for A.Y. 2014-15, 04.02.2026 for A.Y. 2014-15, 04.02.2026 for A.Y. 2013-14, 03.02.2026 for A.Y. 2013-14, 02.02.2026 for A.Y. 2013-14, 02.02.2026 for A.Y. 2014-15, 09.02.2026 for A.Y. 2014-15, 09.02.2026 for A.Y. 2009-10, 03.02.2026 for A.Y. 2014-15, 03.02.2026 for A.Y. 2013-14, 03.02.2026 for A.Y. 2014-15, 13.03.2026 for A.Y. 2014-15, 13.03.2026 for A.Y. 2014-15, 12.03.2026 for A.Y. 2014-15, 10.03.2026 for A.Y. 2013-14, and 10.03.2026 for A.Y. 2014-15.

2.

Since the issues involved in these appeals are common and identical, these appeals were clubbed together and heard together. Accordingly, a consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity. First, we shall take up ITA No. 1743/Mum/2026. The Revenue has raised the following grounds:

1.

"On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.31,34.294 as the addition made by the AO on account of disallowance of buerest expenditure on bogus unsecured loans, holding that the loans toere accommodation entries and not incurred for business purposes."

2.

"On the facts and obcumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the facts of case that the addition was made on the basis of statement recaried on cath of Shri Jitendra Jain, Shri Yogendra Raj Singhui and Shri Abhishek Indulal Jainand"

3.

"The appellant craves leous to add, alter, substitute, amend or modify all or any of the grounds of appeal in future."

3.

All the grounds raised by the Revenue are interrelated and interconnected and relates to challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the additions made by the AO on account of disallowance of interest expenditure on bogus/unverified loans. Therefore, we have decided to adjudicate these grounds through the present consolidated order.

4.

We have heard the counsels for both parties, perused the material placed on record, the judgments cited before us, and the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities. From the records, we noticed that the issue in question is fully covered by a series of decisions of the coordinate bench of the ITAT, most recently the decision in the case of Kamla Landmarc Enterprises in ITA Nos. 3198 and 3199/Mum/2026 dated 22.05.2026.

5.

We also notice that, in the present case, the learned CIT(A), after considering the submissions advanced and taking note of the earlier orders passed by the coordinate bench of the ITAT in ITA Nos. 1365 to 1369/Mum/2019 dated 24.03.2022, had held that once the additions made under Section 68 of the Act in respect of the principal loans had already been deleted by the Tribunal, the corresponding disallowance of interest thereon in the subsequent years could not be sustained.

6.

The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the AO had proceeded entirely on the premise that the loans themselves were non-genuine accommodation entries, whereas such issue had already stood conclusively adjudicated in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal.

7.

Even otherwise, no new facts, circumstances, or documents have been placed on record by the Ld. DR to controvert or rebut the lawful findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with or deviate from the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, we dismiss the grounds raised by the Revenue and uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.

ITA Nos. 1839/MUM/2026, 1904/MUM/2026, 1905/MUM/2026, 5016/MUM/2026, 5018/MUM/2026, 5022/MUM/2026, 5027/MUM/2026, 5029/MUM/2026, 5033/MUM/2026, 5034/MUM/2026, 5040/MUM/2026, 5041/MUM/2026, 5043/MUM/2026, 6063/MUM/2026, 6068/MUM/2026, 6069/MUM/2026 and 6071/MUM/2026

9.

Since the issues involved in these appeals are identical to those in ITA No. 1743/Mum/2026, the findings and decisions rendered in the above paragraphs shall apply mutatis mutandis to these appeals as well.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20.08.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH SANDEEP GOSAIN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 20.08.2026 RY-SrPS Copy to: DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, 413TH, 4TH FLOOR, KAUTILYA BHAWAN, 1 BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI-400051, MAHARASHTRA

MIRCO ANKUR DEVLOPERS, 303, GALAXY ARCADE, 10, M.G. ROAD, 2 VILE PARLE (EAST), MUMBAI-400057, MAHARASHTRA

3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →