TULIKA PREM DEVIDAYAL ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 26(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4938/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 July 2026AY 2015-165 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the loss on JM Arbitrage Fund should be treated as a business loss, not an expense against income from other sources. This reclassification does not impact the overall taxable income or tax liability as business losses can be set off against other income.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed expenses against income from other sources, including a loss on JM Arbitrage Fund. The Assessing Officer disallowed this loss, treating it as an expense against income from other sources rather than a business loss. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision.

What were the issues?

Whether the loss on JM Arbitrage Fund should be classified as business loss or an expense against income from other sources, and the consequential impact on disallowance and penalty.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 57(iii),Section 70,Section 234B,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLESHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & HON’BLE SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

Pronounced: 13.07.2026

PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the assesseeagainst the order of ld. CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1076865712(1) dated 10.06.2025 passed against the assessment order by the ld. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 17(3) u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961

ITA 4938/Mum/2025 Tulika Prem Devidayal A.Y. 2015-16

(hereinafter referred to

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 57(iii)

All 716 judgments and leading authorities on Section 57(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →