MC COY DRUGS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 6449/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 February 2026AY 2013-141 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issues related to loans from Arvind T. Shah and Arihant Corporation to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, considering additional evidence. The Tribunal also directed that unabsorbed depreciation should be allowed as per law.

What were the facts?

The assessee company received unsecured loans from various parties. The Assessing Officer (AO) added these amounts to the assessee's income under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to lack of satisfactory explanation regarding the nature and source of the loans. The CIT(A) partly upheld the AO's additions.

What were the issues?

Whether additions under Section 68 for unsecured loans are justified when the assessee provides loan confirmations and banking channel transactions, and whether the creditworthiness of lenders can be doubted solely on the absence of their ITRs.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 133(6),Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate &, Ms. Neelam jadhav, AR
For Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR
Pronounced: 10.02.2026

Per Arun Khodpia, AM: The captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / NFAC, Delhi (for short “The Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 11.08.2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14, arises from the order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) Mc coy Drugs Private Ltd. dated 16.03.2016 passed by ITO, Ward-10(2(3), Mumbai. (for short “the ld. AO”).

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of

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 →