ENDURA SOFT SOLUTION PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1974/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 July 2025AY 2018-20193 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that during the hearing, the learned Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee pleaded for the withdrawal of the instant appeal. The Tribunal considered this request and granted it. Consequently, the appeal, having been withdrawn by the assessee, was dismissed. The Tribunal did not adjudicate on the merits of the grounds of appeal concerning the additions made under Section 68 for the loan and interest. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of on a procedural basis.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Endura Soft Solution Private Limited, filed an appeal before the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai, against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi. This order pertained to the assessment year 2018-19 and confirmed additions made under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning a loan of Rs. 2,83,56,010 from M/s. Sunglow Fininvest Private Limited (NBFC) and interest of Rs. 1,99,67,364 on this loan. The assessment order was passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Act. During the hearing before the Tribunal, the authorized representative for the assessee pleaded for the withdrawal of the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition made under Section 68 for a loan of Rs. 2,83,56,010 from M/s. Sunglow Fininvest Private Limited (NBFC) is bad in law and liable to be deleted, considering the facts, circumstances, and judicial pronouncements. The assessee argued that the addition was bad in law and should be deleted. 2. Without prejudice to the first issue, whether the addition made under Section 68 for the loan of Rs. 2,83,56,010 from M/s. Sunglow Fininvest Private Limited (NBFC) is bad in law and liable to be deleted because the lender incurred losses during the year. The assessee contended that the addition was bad in law and should be deleted on this ground. 3. Whether the addition made under Section 68 for interest on the entire loan credited to the account of M/s. Sunglow Fininvest Private Limited (NBFC) during the year, amounting to Rs. 1,99,67,364, is bad in law and liable to be deleted. The assessee argued that this addition was bad in law and should be deleted. 4. Without prejudice to the third issue, whether the addition made under Section 68 for interest on the entire loan balance of Rs. 1,99,67,364 is excessive in facts and bad in law, liable to be reduced. The assessee argued that the addition was excessive and should be reduced. The revenue did not present any arguments as the appeal was withdrawn.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

For Appellant: Shri Shubham Shah,AR
For Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)
Hearing: 16.07.2025Pronounced: 24.07.2025

PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :- The present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)"] pertaining to assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] dated 20.04.2021 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2018-19. Page 2 A.Y. 2018-19 Endura Soft Solution Private Limited

2.

The grounds of appeal are as under:-

1.

On given facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncements Hon. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming addition made under section 68 for loan availed during the year amounting to Rs.2,83,56,010 from M/s. Sunglow Fininvest Private Limited (NBFC). Such addition is bad in law and liable to be deleted.

2.

Without prejudice to the above, On given facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncements Hon. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming addition made under section 68 for loan availed during the year amounting to Rs.2,83,56,010 from M/s. Sunglow Fininvest Private Limited (NBFC) because the lender had incurred losses during the year. Such addition made is bad in law and liable to be deleted.

3.

On given facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncements Hon. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming addition made under section 68 for interest on entire loan credited to the account of M/s. Sunglow Fininvest Private Limited (NBFC) during the year amounting to Rs.1,99,67,364. Such addition of Interest is bad in law and liable to be deleted.

4.

Without prejudice to the above, On given facts, circumstances and judicial pronouncements Hon. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming addition made under section 68 for interest on entire loan credited to the account of M/s. Sunglow Fininvest Private Limited (NBFC) during the year amounting to Rs.1,99,67,364. Such addition of Interest on entire loan balance is excessive in facts and is bad in law and liable to be reduced.

3.

When the case was called for hearing before the Bench, the ld.AR of the assessee pleaded for withdrawing the instant appeal. The request was duly considered and is granted by us. Page 3 A.Y. 2018-19 Endura Soft Solution Private Limited

4.

In the result, the appeal having been withdrawn accordingly is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24.07.2025. SAKTIJIT DEY (VICE PRESIDENT) Place: मुंबई/Mumbai दिनांक / Date 24.07.2025 Lubhna Shaikh / Steno PRABHASH SHANKAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित/

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →