RAMANAND KIDARNATH INTERNATIONAL ,MUMBAI vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE 26(1), MUMBAI

ITA 99/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 June 2026AY 2013-1410 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that insufficiency of stamp duty does not invalidate a document, as the Stamp Act provides for penalties. Greater importance should be given to the substance of the matter over technical defects.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 1,07,80,631/- on account of remuneration to working partners and the disallowance of Rs. 4,50,000/- under Section 35AC. The AO disallowed partner remuneration due to issues with the amended partnership deed's stamp papers and timing of its language.

What were the issues?

Whether the amended partnership deed was invalid due to stamp duty issues and the timing of its language, impacting partner remuneration deductibility.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(b),Section 35AC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SANDEEP GOSAIN & HON’BLE BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH

For Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri

PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. NFAC vide dated 27-Nov-2025 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

ITA 99/MUM/2026 RAMANAND KIDARNATH INTERNATIONAL

1.

The learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in sustaining the

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 40(b)

All 428 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →