ARUNKUMAR JAYANTILAL MUCHHALA ,MUMBAI vs. DY. COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI

ITA 5399/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 January 2026AY 2010-11Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted the additional documents as vital evidence. Due to the admission of new evidence, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter back to the CIT(A) for factual verification and fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals challenging the orders of the CIT(A) which confirmed additions on account of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) of the Income Tax Act. The appeals for various assessment years were clubbed. The ITAT admitted additional documents filed by the assessee which were vital to adjudicate the controversy.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition on account of deemed dividend under Section 2(22)(e) is justified, especially when new evidence requires factual verification by the lower appellate authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(22)(e),Section 250,Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Vajani
For Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR
Hearing: 23.12.2025Pronounced: 27.01.2026

Heard together (6 matters)

I.T.A. No. 5395/Mum/2025
I.T.A. No. 5396/Mum/2025
I.T.A. No. 5397/Mum/2025
I.T.A. No. 5398/Mum/2025
I.T.A. No. 5399/Mum/2025
I.T.A. No. 5400/Mum/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER BENCH: The present appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the different impugned orders dt. 13.06.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment years 2006-07 to 2012-13. Since all the issues involved in these all appeals are common and identical, therefore, they have been clubbed, Arunkumar Jayantilal Muchhala, Mumbai. heard together and consolidated order is being

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 2(22)(e)

All 1,757 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(22)(e) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →