DCIT-CC-8(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. VIKAS JAIN, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4922/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 July 2026AY 2014-152 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no distinguishing features between the facts of the current appeal and the previous assessment year. No material was presented to contradict the CIT(A)'s findings.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an order of the CIT(A) that deleted an addition of Rs. 3,52,215/- made by the AO on account of alleged cash commission income. The CIT(A) relied on a previous appellate order for A.Y. 2012-13 where an identical addition was deleted.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of cash commission income based on a prior year's order. Whether there were any distinguishing facts to warrant a different conclusion.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLENARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & HON’BLE

Pronounced: 10.07.2026

आदेश / ORDER

PER: NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal has been preferred by the REVENUE against the order dated 14.02.2026, impugned herein, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2014-15.

ITA 4922/Mum/2026; Vikas Jain

2.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we find that while deleting the addition of Rs. 3,52,215/- made by the AO on account of alleged cash commission income, the Ld. Commissioner has relied upon the appellate order passed in the Assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2012-13, wherein an identical addition had already been deleted.

3.

Nothing has been brought on record to demonstrate any distinguishing feature between the facts involved in the earlier assessment year and those arising in the present appeal. We also otherwise find no reason or material to contradict the findings recorded by the Ld. Commissioner. Accordingly, the impugned order deserves no interference and therefore the same is upheld.

4.

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 10.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- MAKARAND VASANTMAHADEOKAR NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER (Soumili Das) Private Secretary

Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench

//True Copy// By Order

Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →