SAJJID AMIR KHAN ,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CC-7(1), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that consultancy payments were substantiated by an agreement and confirmation letters, and that certain unsecured loans were actually trade credits supported by CA certificates and ledger accounts. It also ruled that commission expenses, even if unpaid by year-end, are allowable if regular and per agreement, and that property taxes on premises used for business are deductible.
What were the facts?
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) heard appeals concerning an assessee engaged in exporting hand-embroidery garments. The appeals involved issues arising from a survey and reassessment proceedings, with the CIT(A) having passed orders broadly following previous ITAT decisions.
What were the issues?
Whether consultancy payments, unsecured loans, commission expenses, and property taxes were correctly disallowed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A).
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- PCIT v. R.G. Buildwell Engineers Ltd.71 citing99 Taxmann.com 284 · 2018 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & SHRI JAGADISH
Heard together (5 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Per: SHRI JAGADISH, A.M.:
These appeals arise out of the orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter Ld. CIT (A)]. The Revenue has filed appeals for AY 2017-18 to 2019-20 being ITA No.6685 to ITA Nos. 6685 to 6687 and 6546 & 6552/M/2025 Sajjid Amir Khan :- 2 -:
6687/Mum/2025. The a
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 133A
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Amr Infrastructures, Hyderabad vs DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), HyderabadITA 818/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shri Vikaskumar Macwan, Nadiad vs Dc/ACIT Central Circle 3, VadodaraITA 2022/AHD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026