SURAJ VIJAY KULKARNI,MUMBAI vs. ITO 8(1)(3), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that while the existence of the activity and receipt of income was credible, the assessee failed to substantiate the claimed expenses with cogent evidence before the Assessing Officer. The rejection of additional evidence at the appellate stage was upheld.
What were the facts?
The assessee, an individual employed as a salary professional, also undertook a one-time liasioning and coordination assignment for an SRA Redevelopment Project, earning Rs. 1,03,90,000/-. The case was reopened under section 148 of the Act. The assessee declared a net profit of Rs. 58,69,500/- and claimed expenses of Rs. 45,20,500/-.
What were the issues?
Whether the expenses claimed by the assessee against consultancy receipts were substantiated with cogent evidence, and if newly produced evidence at the appellate stage can be admitted.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 250,Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 57,Section 69,Section 46A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI
Per: Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [for brevity the “Ld. CIT(A)”], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2010-11, date of order 10.10.2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Ld. Income Tax Officer Ward-8(1)(3), Mumbai (for brevity the ‘’Ld. AO”), order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act date of order 21.12.2017. 2 Suraj Vijay Kulkarni
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and was employed as a salary professional during the impugned assessment year. In addition to his employment the assessee under
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.
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 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
