ACIT-4(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. QMAX SYNTHETICS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 7561/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 February 2026AY 2012-1312 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the additions and disallowance of interest by respectfully following the binding precedent of a coordinate bench in the assessee's own case for AY 2008-09, where similar issues were decided in favor of the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee received unsecured loans of Rs. 16,00,000/- from Olive Overseas Pvt. Ltd., which the Assessing Officer treated as unexplained credits. The AO also disallowed interest expenditure of Rs. 2,63,243/-. The CIT(A) deleted these additions, relying on a previous ITAT decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2008-09.

What were the issues?

Whether unsecured loans from a party identified as a paper entity by the Investigation Wing are genuine, and whether consequential interest disallowance is justified when the primary addition is deleted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 37(1),Section 69C,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1.

The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 01/09/2025, passed by the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -6, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)'] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 14/12/2016, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as `the Act'] for the Assessment Year 2012- 2013. 2. The Revenue has raised f

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 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →