DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. MOTILAL OSWAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s orders, finding that VSAT is part of a computer eligible for 60% depreciation, 'Vanda loss' is a business loss and not speculation loss, and bad debts were allowable. The Department's grounds of appeal were dismissed.
What were the facts?
The Department appealed the CIT(A)'s order concerning depreciation on VSAT, the classification of 'Vanda loss' as speculation loss, and the allowance of bad debts. The Tribunal considered previous ITAT decisions in the assessee's own case.
What were the issues?
Whether VSAT is eligible for depreciation as a computer, whether 'Vanda loss' is a speculation loss, and the allowability of bad debts.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI
Before: SANDEEP GOSAIN & BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal is filed by the Department against the order of Ld. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME (APPEALS)-51 dated 03-Sep-2025 for the Assessment Year 2014. The Department has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1) AS PER ANNEXURE
Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue relates to challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in holding that VSAT is a part of a computer and is eligible for depreciation at the rate of 60%.
In this regard, we have heard the counsel for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, the judgments cited before us, and also the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities. From the records, we notice that this issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT in the assessee's own case of M/s. Motilal Oswal Securities in ITA Nos. 6738 to 6741/Mum/2007 (A.Ys. 2001-02 to 2004-05).
Moreover, while adjudicating this ground, the Ld. CIT(A) has relied upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT, and the operative portion of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contained in paragraphs 5.1 to 5.3 and the same is reproduced herein below:
Even otherwise, no new facts, circumstances, or documents have been placed on record by the Ld. DR in order 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 ground raised by the Revenue and uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A).
Ground Nos. 2 and 3 raised by the Revenue are interrelated and interconnected and relate to challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in appreciating the fact that the AO had applied the provisions of the Explanation to Section 73 of the Act, wherein it does not make any distinction between losses in purchase and sale on own account or any other type of transactions, and thus was not justified in directing the AO to allow the Vanda loss. Therefore, we have decided to adjudicate these grounds through the present consolidated order.
In this regard, we have heard the counsel for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, the judgments cited before us, and also the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities.
At the very outset, we also notice that these grounds are squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT in the assessee's own case of M/s. Motilal Oswal Securities in ITA No. 168/Mum/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08).
Even the Ld. CIT(A), while adjudicating this ground, has relied upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT in the assessee's own case, and the operative portion of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contained in paragraphs 6.1 to 6.5 and the same is reproduced herein below:
6.1 Ground no. 2 pertains to the action of the AO in considering the Vanda loss. of Rs. 76,32,764/- as speculation loss under section 73 and rejecting the claim of the appellant that the said loss is incurred in the normal course of its business and thereby allowable under section 28 or 37(1). Vanda loss is incurred by a broker when the clients disown the transaction undertaken by the broker on his behalf. This occurs when there may be trade error in executing the orders by the broker (or) the client may fail to satisfy his contractual obligations. However, since the broker (i.e. the appellant company) is primarily responsible for trade undertaken on behalf of its clients it has to compulsorily satisfy those obligations within the permissible time prescribed by SEBI. These obligations which the broker has to compulsorily undertake are transferred to Vanda / Error trade account which would result into profit/loss. The Appellant company incurred loss of Rs 76,32,764/- on Vanda account during the year under consideration. The same is grouped under the head 'Other operating revenue". The Appellant had submitted party-wise and scrip-wise details of the entire Vanda loss. The Appellant also submitted reasoning of incurring Vanda loss. However, the submission made by the appellant was not accepted by the AO who, relying on the decision of the AO in the preceding years, held the loss to be in the nature of speculation loss which could not be allowed as deduction.
6.2. Apart from relying on the earlier years' decision of AO, the reasons cited by AO for disallowing the Vanda Loss is as below: -
a) Section 73 does not make any distinction between losses incurred in purchase and sale in own account or any other type of transaction. Explanation to section 73 specifically excludes certain types of companies from its ambit and the appellant does not belong to the category of such exceptions.
b) Once the client has disowned the transaction, the appellant steps into the shoes of the client and it is in the interest of the appellant that the transaction is squared off at the earliest and the losses if any are minimized. But in the instant case, the transactions have been steeled beyond reasonable time, losses have been incurred on account of compulsory auctions etc. which imply that the appellant was working for an opportune moment i.e. a situation where the transaction would result in a profit.
c) The loss has arisen out of transaction of shares by a company, i.e. the appellant Whether it is by error or not, whether it is in the name of the appellant or not for the technical reasons; the indisputable fact remains that the loss is claimed by the appellant, and the loss is on account of share transactions. The denial of the ownership by the client further reinforces the ownership of the appellant on the transacted shares.
d) These facts are conclusive and decisive for the invoking the applicability of explanation to section 73. Accordingly, the loss of 73,07,188 is treated as speculation loss and is added in the total income of the appellant.
6.3. Before me, appellant made various submissions which are summarised as under: -
a) Appellant had relied upon decision of Hon'ble ITAT in its own case for AY 2007- 08 to AY 2011-12 and CIT(A)'s order for AY 2012-13 wherein relief is granted to the appellant.
b) The business of the Appellant is stock broking and not "purchase and sale of shares" as contemplated in the Explanation to section 73 and therefore, the said Explanation is not applicable.
c) Nowhere it is found that the appellant had settled the transaction beyond reasonable time. Vanda transactions are squared off immediately i.e on the transaction day itself or within the eligible settlement period which is not more than 2 days. The argument of AO is merely reproduction of earlier years' orders and is based on presumptions which can never be accepted.
d) The observations of the Assessing Officer is already rejected by the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in appellant's own case for AY 2007-08 to AY 2010-11 as well as by CIT(A) for AY 2011-12.
e) It has been held by all the Court rulings that there is lack of ingredient called "business" in the sale and purchase done by the Appellant of shares for which net loss has occurred to Appellant. The primary ingredient of such transactions is "error" which cannot be ignored while determining its taxability.
f) On without prejudice basis it is submitted that even if it is accepted that such loss suffered by the appellant company was on account of self-trading, still the loss cannot be termed as speculation loss. In normal terminology, the share trading business on behalf of oneself is known as jobbing. Section 43(5) defines the word speculative transaction, but there are three exceptions to it. Any profit or loss on account of jobbing will not be in the nature of speculation profit or speculation loss. Thus, even if it is accepted that the loss suffered by the appellant was on account of self-trading in view of proviso (c) to section 43(5), such loss cannot be treated as speculation loss.
g) AO had not put forth any reasons while making the argument that the losses incurred by the appellant are nowhere in the nature of jobbing and hedging but normal purchase/sale transactions, and hence it must be treated as speculative and disallowed under Explanation to section 73.
h) Once it is proved that the transactions originated in the normal course of the business carried on by the appellant, and is subsequently disowned by the client leading to compulsory auctions, the subsequent auction is in the nature of jobbing/hedging which is carried order to mitigate the original loss suffered at the time the client disowned the transaction. Accordingly, such transactions falls under the ambit of proviso (c) to section 43(5) and hence cannot be treated as speculative in nature.
i) The loss occurred to appellant was in the course of its business activity of brokerage thereby allowable as business loss and is available to be set off against brokerage income under section 28.
6.4. The submission made by the appellant has been considered. It is noted that the ITAT has decided the same issue in favor of the appellant in its own case for AY 2007- 08 to AY 2012-13. The relevant extract of Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT's decision for AY 2007-08, ITA No. 168/Mum/2011:-
"62. Thus Vanda transactions are undertaken in the course of the business of earning brokerage and not on its own account. After the said transactions are disowned by the clients, the broker has to purchase the shares from the market in order to satisfy the sale obligations of the client, or in case of purchase obligations the broker purchases the said shares and sells in the open market or auctions it. This may result into gains/loss to the broker, which is termed as Vanda gain/loss. The brokerage chargeable to these transactions is recouped from the said gain/loss.
Taxability of gain/loss on Vanda transactions. Now the question may arise whether the transactions on Vanda account resulting into gain/loss, a normal business income/loss or it is in the nature of speculative business vide Explanation to section 73.
Before discussing the issue it would be worthwhile to reproduce the Explanation to s. 73 which reads as under:
Where any part of the business of a company other than a company whose gross total income consists mainly of income which is chargeable under the heads 'Interest on securities income from house-property', 'Capital Gains' and 'Income from Other sources', or a company the principal business of which is the business of banking or grating of loans and advances consists in the purposes of this section, be deemed to be carrying on a speculation business to the extent to which the business consists of the purchase and sale of such shares.
Thus it is clear from the above provision that sale and purchase of shares of other companies, within the ambit of the Explanation, must be carried out as an activity of business of purchase and sale in his own account and not for earning brokerage. To find out that the broker carried on purchase and sale of shares of other companies as its business, it will have to be examined and the tests, which could determine such a situation are:
i Nature of Appellant's business in general;
ii the purpose behind the particular transaction;
iii the effect of the transaction, etc.
Nature of trader's business in general: The nature of trader's business in general is to earn income as a broker of stock exchange.
Purpose behind the particular transaction: The intention of trader behind the purchase/sale of shares on Vanda account was not to indulge in the business activities of purchase and sale of shares to make profit out of it at its own. The purpose behind the said transactions was to earn brokerage income therefrom. It was only in an eventuality that some of the clients disowned the transactions which under compulsion were to be taken by broker at its own. The mere fact that the Appellant has treated vanda transaction distinct from its regular brokerage and business transaction, we have to examine the transactions as recorded by the Appellant and come to a conclusion that how vanda transactions are treated and its effect in so far as the Appellant is concerned.
We find that the copy of Vanda account for "individuals" & for "Institutions" is already submitted. The Appellant has also submitted sample copy of the Sauda Book and contract notes during the course of hearing. The details bring out the inference that these transactions were not intended to be on own account of the Appellant company.
Explanation to s. 73 is attracted only when part of the business of the Appellant company consists of the purchase and sale of shares of other companies and in that situation only such dealings in shares is deemed to be carrying on a speculative business. It must be noticed that any kind of venture will not fall within the definition of "business". The venture or adventure will have to be In the nature of trade, commerce or manufacture.
Thus, there is lack of ingredient called "business" in the sale and purchase done by the Appellant of shares for which net loss has occurred to Appellant. Thus the said loss arisen to Appellant does not fall within the ambit of Explanation to s. 73. The loss occurred to Appellant was in course of its business activity of brokerage.
Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of ACIT v/s Subhash Chand Shorewala (2004) 91 TTJ (Del) 57. The conclusion is stated below:
Admittedly, the Appellant, being in the business of broking would be facing situations wherein some of the clients do not own up the transactions on anticipating losses. In such situations, the consequential loss incurred by the Appellant to honour the commitments is to be viewed an integral part of carrying on of Appellant's business and is, therefore, not liable to be judged as a speculation loss.
The view has been taken
Dy. CIT vs S. C. Gupta (ITA No 2897/Del/1997, dt 271h May, 2003) followed;
CIT vs Bhagwan Dass Rameshwar Dayal 42 CTR 200 (Del) 149 ITR 387 (Del) and relied on by the Appellant.
The issue also came up before Ahmedabad bench of ITAT, in the case of Parker Securities Ltd vs DCIT, reported in 102 TTJ 235 and in ITO vs Rijvi Securities (P) Ltd. reported in 50 SOT 592, wherein the coordinate Bench at Ahmedabad held it to be business loss and not a speculation loss.
Since there is no contrary decision on the issue, we, therefore, respectfully following the above decisions, sustain the order of the CIT(A) and reject the ground as raised by the department."
6.5. Respectfully following the orders of ITAT in earlier years, it is held that the issue is a covered issue in favour of the appellant. The addition of Rs.76,32,764/- done by the AO on account of Vanda loss is deleted and this ground of appeal is allowed.
Moreover, no new facts, circumstances, or documents have been placed on record by the Ld. DR in order 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).
Ground No. 4 raised by the Revenue relates to challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in allowing depreciation on non-compete fees after holding that the non-compete fees are capital in nature.
This ground is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT in the assessee's own case of M/s. Motilal Oswal Securities in ITA No. 168/Mum/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08).
Even the Ld. CIT(A), while adjudicating this ground, has also relied upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT in the assessee's own case, and the operative portion of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contained in paragraphs 6.1 to 6.5 and the same is reproduced herein below:
6.1 Ground no. 2 pertains to the action of the AO in considering the Vanda loss. of Rs. 76,32,764/- as speculation loss under section 73 and rejecting the claim of the appellant that the said loss is incurred in the normal course of its business and thereby allowable under section 28 or 37(1). Vanda loss is incurred by a broker when the clients disown the transaction undertaken by the broker on his behalf. This occurs when there may be trade error in executing the orders by the broker (or) the client may fail to satisfy his contractual obligations. However, since the broker (i.e. the appellant company) is primarily responsible for trade undertaken on behalf of its clients it has to compulsorily satisfy those obligations within the permissible time prescribed by SEBI. These obligations which the broker has to compulsorily undertake are transferred to Vanda / Error trade account which would result into profit/loss. The Appellant company incurred loss of Rs 76,32,764/- on Vanda account during the year under consideration. The same is grouped under the head 'Other operating revenue". The Appellant had submitted party-wise and scrip-wise details of the entire Vanda loss. The Appellant also submitted reasoning of incurring Vanda loss. However, the submission made by the appellant was not accepted by the AO who, relying on the decision of the AO in the preceding years, held the loss to be in the nature of speculation loss which could not be allowed as deduction.
6.2. Apart from relying on the earlier years' decision of AO, the reasons cited by AO for disallowing the Vanda Loss is as below: -
a) Section 73 does not make any distinction between losses incurred in purchase and sale in own account or any other type of transaction. Explanation to section 73 specifically excludes certain types of companies from its ambit and the appellant does not belong to the category of such exceptions.
b) Once the client has disowned the transaction, the appellant steps into the shoes of the client and it is in the interest of the appellant that the transaction is squared off at the earliest and the losses if any are minimized. But in the instant case, the transactions have been steeled beyond reasonable time, losses have been incurred on account of compulsory auctions etc. which imply that the appellant was working for an opportune moment i.e. a situation where the transaction would result in a profit.
c) The loss has arisen out of transaction of shares by a company, i.e. the appellant Whether it is by error or not, whether it is in the name of the appellant or not for the technical reasons; the indisputable fact remains that the loss is claimed by the appellant, and the loss is on account of share transactions. The denial of the ownership by the client further reinforces the ownership of the appellant on the transacted shares.
d) These facts are conclusive and decisive for the invoking the applicability of explanation to section 73. Accordingly, the loss of 73,07,188 is treated as speculation loss and is added in the total income of the appellant.
6.3. Before me, appellant made various submissions which are summarised as under: -
a) Appellant had relied upon decision of Hon'ble ITAT in its own case for AY 2007- 08 to AY 2011-12 and CIT(A)'s order for AY 2012-13 wherein relief is granted to the appellant.
b) The business of the Appellant is stock broking and not "purchase and sale of shares" as contemplated in the Explanation to section 73 and therefore, the said Explanation is not applicable.
c) Nowhere it is found that the appellant had settled the transaction beyond reasonable time. Vanda transactions are squared off immediately i.e on the transaction day itself or within the eligible settlement period which is not more than 2 days. The argument of AO is merely reproduction of earlier years' orders and is based on presumptions which can never be accepted.
d) The observations of the Assessing Officer is already rejected by the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in appellant's own case for AY 2007-08 to AY 2010-11 as well as by CIT(A) for AY 2011-12.
e) It has been held by all the Court rulings that there is lack of ingredient called "business" in the sale and purchase done by the Appellant of shares for which net loss has occurred to Appellant. The primary ingredient of such transactions is "error" which cannot be ignored while determining its taxability.
f) On without prejudice basis it is submitted that even if it is accepted that such loss suffered by the appellant company was on account of self-trading, still the loss cannot be termed as speculation loss. In normal terminology, the share trading business on behalf of oneself is known as jobbing. Section 43(5) defines the word speculative transaction, but there are three exceptions to it. Any profit or loss on account of jobbing will not be in the nature of speculation profit or speculation loss. Thus, even if it is accepted that the loss suffered by the appellant was on account of self-trading in view of proviso (c) to section 43(5), such loss cannot be treated as speculation loss.
g) AO had not put forth any reasons while making the argument that the losses incurred by the appellant are nowhere in the nature of jobbing and hedging but normal purchase/sale transactions, and hence it must be treated as speculative and disallowed under Explanation to section 73.
h) Once it is proved that the transactions originated in the normal course of the business carried on by the appellant, and is subsequently disowned by the client leading to compulsory auctions, the subsequent auction is in the nature of jobbing/hedging which is carried order to mitigate the original loss suffered at the time the client disowned the transaction. Accordingly, such transactions falls under the ambit of proviso (c) to section 43(5) and hence cannot be treated as speculative in nature.
i) The loss occurred to appellant was in the course of its business activity of brokerage thereby allowable as business loss and is available to be set off against brokerage income under section 28.
6.4. The submission made by the appellant has been considered. It is noted that the ITAT has decided the same issue in favor of the appellant in its own case for AY 2007- 08 to AY 2012-13. The relevant extract of Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT's decision for AY 2007-08, ITA No. 168/Mum/2011:-
"62. Thus Vanda transactions are undertaken in the course of the business of earning brokerage and not on its own account. After the said transactions are disowned by the clients, the broker has to purchase the shares from the market in order to satisfy the sale obligations of the client, or in case of purchase obligations the broker purchases the said shares and sells in the open market or auctions it. This may result into gains/loss to the broker, which is termed as Vanda gain/loss. The brokerage chargeable to these transactions is recouped from the said gain/loss.
Taxability of gain/loss on Vanda transactions. Now the question may arise whether the transactions on Vanda account resulting into gain/loss, a normal business income/loss or it is in the nature of speculative business vide Explanation to section 73.
Before discussing the issue it would be worthwhile to reproduce the Explanation to s. 73 which reads as under:
Where any part of the business of a company other than a company whose gross total income consists mainly of income which is chargeable under the heads 'Interest on securities income from house-property', 'Capital Gains' and 'Income from Other sources', or a company the principal business of which is the business of banking or grating of loans and advances consists in the purposes of this section, be deemed to be carrying on a speculation business to the extent to which the business consists of the purchase and sale of such shares.
Thus it is clear from the above provision that sale and purchase of shares of other companies, within the ambit of the Explanation, must be carried out as an activity of business of purchase and sale in his own account and not for earning brokerage. To find out that the broker carried on purchase and sale of shares of other companies as its business, it will have to be examined and the tests, which could determine such a situation are:
i Nature of Appellant's business in general;
ii the purpose behind the particular transaction;
iii the effect of the transaction, etc.
Nature of trader's business in general: The nature of trader's business in general is to earn income as a broker of stock exchange.
Purpose behind the particular transaction: The intention of trader behind the purchase/sale of shares on Vanda account was not to indulge in the business activities of purchase and sale of shares to make profit out of it at its own. The purpose behind the said transactions was to earn brokerage income therefrom. It was only in an eventuality that some of the clients disowned the transactions which under compulsion were to be taken by broker at its own. The mere fact that the Appellant has treated vanda transaction distinct from its regular brokerage and business transaction, we have to examine the transactions as recorded by the Appellant and come to a conclusion that how vanda transactions are treated and its effect in so far as the Appellant is concerned.
We find that the copy of Vanda account for "individuals" & for "Institutions" is already submitted. The Appellant has also submitted sample copy of the Sauda Book and contract notes during the course of hearing. The details bring out the inference that these transactions were not intended to be on own account of the Appellant company.
Explanation to s. 73 is attracted only when part of the business of the Appellant company consists of the purchase and sale of shares of other companies and in that situation only such dealings in shares is deemed to be carrying on a speculative business. It must be noticed that any kind of venture will not fall within the definition of "business". The venture or adventure will have to be In the nature of trade, commerce or manufacture.
Thus, there is lack of ingredient called "business" in the sale and purchase done by the Appellant of shares for which net loss has occurred to Appellant. Thus the said loss arisen to Appellant does not fall within the ambit of Explanation to s. 73. The loss occurred to Appellant was in course of its business activity of brokerage.
Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of ACIT v/s Subhash Chand Shorewala (2004) 91 TTJ (Del) 57. The conclusion is stated below:
Admittedly, the Appellant, being in the business of broking would be facing situations wherein some of the clients do not own up the transactions on anticipating losses. In such situations, the consequential loss incurred by the Appellant to honour the commitments is to be viewed an integral part of carrying on of Appellant's business and is, therefore, not liable to be judged as a speculation loss.
The view has been taken
Dy. CIT vs S. C. Gupta (ITA No 2897/Del/1997, dt 271h May, 2003) followed;
CIT vs Bhagwan Dass Rameshwar Dayal 42 CTR 200 (Del) 149 ITR 387 (Del) and relied on by the Appellant.
The issue also came up before Ahmedabad bench of ITAT, in the case of Parker Securities Ltd vs DCIT, reported in 102 TTJ 235 and in ITO vs Rijvi Securities (P) Ltd. reported in 50 SOT 592, wherein the coordinate Bench at Ahmedabad held it to be business loss and not a speculation loss.
Since there is no contrary decision on the issue, we, therefore, respectfully following the above decisions, sustain the order of the CIT(A) and reject the ground as raised by the department."
6.5. Respectfully following the orders of ITAT in earlier years, it is held that the issue is a covered issue in favour of the appellant. The addition of Rs.76,32,764/- done by the AO on account of Vanda loss is deleted and this ground of appeal is allowed.
Moreover, no new facts, circumstances, or documents have been placed on record by the Ld. DR in order 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).
17. Hence, we dismiss the ground raised by the Revenue and uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A).
Ground Nos. 5 and 7 relate to the direction of the Ld. CIT(A) to the AO to recompute the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act as per the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd., without appreciating the fact that the said decision has not been accepted by the Revenue and that the SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court is pending.
These grounds are squarely covered by the decision of the ITAT in the assessee's own case, and the Ld. CIT(A) has also adjudicated these grounds in his order. The operative portion of the same is contained in paragraphs 9.1 to 9.4 and the same is reproduced herein belwo:
Moreover, no new facts, circumstances, or documents have been placed on record by the Ld. DR in order 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).
Ground Nos. 6, 8 and 9 relate to allowing the claim of bad debts of the assessee.
In this regard, before we proceed further, it is necessary to evaluate the order of the Ld. CIT(A), and the operative portion of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is contained in paragraphs 11.4 to 11.4.11 and the same is reproduced herein below:
After having heard both the counsel at length and after evaluating the facts of the present case, we find that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT. Moreover, the Ld. CIT(A) has also decided this issue while taking into consideration the decisions of the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT in the cases of Remi Sales & Engineering Ltd. (Mum), Aditya Commodities Pvt. Ltd. (Mum), Nirshilp Securities Pvt. Ltd. (Mum), Chowdry Associates (Del.), Ketan Anil Shah (Mum), Cello Pens & Stationery Pvt. Ltd. (Mum), and Clothing Culture Ltd. (Mum).
25. No new facts, circumstances, or documents have been placed on record by the Ld. DR in order 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).
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 07.07.2026.
Sd/- Sd/- BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH SANDEEP GOSAIN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 07.07.2026 RY-Sr PS Copy to: DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, R.NO. 126A, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI-400020, MAHARASHTRA MOTILAL OSWAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED, MOTILAL OSWAL TOWER 2 RAHIMTULLAH SAYANI ROAD, PRABHADEVI S.O, MUMBAI-400025, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE
More judgments on Section 73
- The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax… vs Nk Proteins Pvt. LtdTAXAP/449/20254 Aug 2026
- Trinity Opportunity Fund I, Mauritius vs Assessing Officer-Int Tax Circle 4(1)(2)…ITA 3140/MUM/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed15 Jun 2026AY 2023-24
- ITO, Parel, Mumbai vs Kunal Govind Kataria, MumbaiITA 2125/MUM/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed22 May 2026AY 2010-11
- Kpa Apparels Private Limited, Delhi vs Income Tax Officer Ward 14(3), DelhiITA 2798/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed14 May 2026AY 2020-21
- Income Tax Officer-19(1)(1), Mumbai vs Geeta Kirit Muchhala, MumbaiITA 9038/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed20 Apr 2026AY 2015-16
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Deepak Kumar Daiya vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.Calcutta · 4 Nov 2026
- Pawan Kumar Rajgaria vs. State Of West BengalCalcutta · 4 Nov 2026
- Mohammed Fazil vs. State Of ChhattisgarhChhattisgarh · 4 Nov 2026
- Tvl. Devaerakkam Mercy Mary vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 4 Nov 2026
- Procter And Gamble Health LTD vs. Union Of INDIATelangana · 4 Nov 2026
