LESHARK GLOBAL LLP ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3180/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 July 2025AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)75 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the MEIS 'reward' received by the assessee is a capital receipt and not taxable as revenue income. For certain assessment years, the matter was restored to the AO to examine the claim on merits, while for others, the claims were allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeals relate to additions made on account of alleged cash loans and notional interest, based on documents seized from a third party during an independent search. The assessee argued that no incriminating material was found during its own search and that the additions were based on material not originating from its premises.

What were the issues?

Whether MEIS incentives are capital receipts and not taxable as revenue, and whether additions based on material seized from a third party during an independent search are valid under Section 153A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 56,Section 153A,Section 153C,Section 132(4),Section 153D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(30)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, Shri Satish Kumar
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Hearing: 25/06/2025

PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee against order of ld. CIT(A)-52, Mumbai for the quantum of assessment passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A for the A.Y.2012- 13 to 2018-19. 2. Since all the appeals involve common issue and are based on identical facts therefore, same were heard together and have been disposed of by way of this consolidated order.

3.

Both the parties agreed that if the appeal for the A.Y.2012- 13 is decided, the same finding will apply mutatis mutandis in other years also. Accordingly, the appeal for A.Y.2012-13 in ITA No. No.3177/Mum

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 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →