JAMNADAS VIRJI SHARES AND STOCK BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

During the reassessment proceedings, the assessee submitted that it was not engaged in the business of trading in gold or jewellery and that the gold coins were purchased every year on the occasion of Diwali as a long-standing practice for business promotion and staff welfare. It was explained that the gold was distributed immediately to employees, sub-brokers and associates, that payments were made through account payee cheques, and that invoices and bank details were furnished. The assessee further submitted that no stock register was maintained since it was not a dealer in gold and the gold was not held as stock-in-trade, and that the expenditure was debited in the Profit and Loss Account as business promotion expenses. The assessee also challenged the validity of reopening on the ground that it was based on borrowed satisfaction, without independent application of mind, and that the statement of the proprietor of M/s Swastik Corporation was neither furnished nor subjected to cross-examination, placing reliance on the subsequent retraction by the said proprietor.

The Assessing Officer did not accept the assessee's explanation and held that the information from the Investigation Wing showed that M/s Swastik Corporation was providing accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee failed to establish actual delivery and utilisation of gold and that the explanation of business promotion was not supported by sufficient evidence. It was further held that processing of the return under section 143(1) did not amount to scrutiny and, therefore, reopening was valid. Accordingly, the purchases of gold were treated as bogus and disallowed under section 37(1) for all the years. In Assessment Year 2016–17, dividend income claimed as exempt under section 10(34) was also brought to tax. Consequential interest was levied and penalty proceedings were initiated.

Aggrieved by the reassessment orders, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the NFAC. The assessee reiterated both juri ictional grounds challenging the validity of reopening and merits of additions, and also raised grounds relating to non- grant of credit for advance tax, TDS, and levy of interest. The CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by holding that: • the reopening was based on tangible material received from the Investigation Wing; the assessee failed to conclusively prove the genuineness of purchases; the Assessing Officer was justified in relying on survey findings in the case of M/s Swastik Corporation; the disallowance under section 37(1) was correctly made. Accordingly, the CIT(A) confirmed the additions and interest for all the years. In Assessment Year 2016–17, the CIT(A) also upheld the taxation of dividend income and the consequential reduction of business loss.

For the sake of clarity, the details of assessment are tabulated below: Particulars Date filing original return of income u/s 139(1) Returned income (Rs.) Date of AO'S order Nature of main addition Amount of addition on account of gold purchase (Rs.) Other additions / adjustments Assessed income (Rs.) Date of CIT(A) / NFAC order u/s 250 A.Y. 2014-15 27.09.2014 Rs. 22,72,400/- 20.03.2022 Alleged bogus purchase of gold from M/s Swastik Corporation treated as unexplained business expenditure u/s 37(1) Rs. 3,25,500/- A.Y. 2015-16 12.09.2015 Rs. 28,33,400/- 22.03.2022 Rs. 3,83,822/- Α.Υ. 2016-17 02.09.2016 Rs. 7,34,380/- 27.03.2022 Rs. 3,91,304/- Α.Υ. 2017-18 11.10.2017 Rs. 2,70,780/- 22.03.2022 Rs. 3,91,403/- Nil Nil Dividend income of Rs. 14,70,796/- taxed despite claim of exemption u/s 10(34), resulting in reduction of business loss Nil Rs. 25,97,900/- Rs. 32,17,222/- Rs. 11,25,685/- Rs. 6,62,183/- 09.10.2025 09.10.2025 09.10.2025 09.10.2025

Aggrieved by the orders of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal: In appeal No. ITA No. 8361/MUM/2025 for A.Y. 2014–15

Both the lower authorities erred in neither furnishing the statement recorded of the proprietor of “Swastik Corporation” nor in granting cross examination of the said proprietor.

The appellant submits that the reopening under section 147 was without juri iction, as the AO resorted to section 147 on the basis of borrowed satisfaction.

The learned CIT(A) / NFAC erred in ignoring the retraction issued by the sole proprietor of M/s Swastik Corporation, and which was relied on by the Tribunal in the proprietor's own case.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that the reassessment under section 147 is invalid, and requires to be cancelled.

The learned CIT(A) / NFAC erred in ignoring the additional evidence submitted vide letter dated 1st November, 2023 and relied upon in the written submissions before CIT(A) / NFAC.

The CIT(A) / NFAC erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,25,500/- being purchase of gold coins from M/s Swastik Corporation which were used for business promotion / staff welfare.

Having regard to the facts of the case, the Appellant submits the AO be directed to delete the disallowance of Rs. 3,25,500/- made on the allegation that the said purchase was a bogus purchase.

Both the lower authorities erred in not granting credit for Rs. 4,00,000/- paid by way of advance tax, although appearing in Form 26AS and granted credit for in the intimation under section 143(1).

Both the lower authorities erred in not granting credit for Rs. 3,22,006/- paid by way of TDS, although appearing in Form 26AS and granted credit for in the intimation under section 143(1).

The AO erred in levying interest under section 234A of Rs. 11,055/- and CIT(A) erred in confirming the same.

The AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of Rs. 96,480/- and under section 234D of Rs. 7,238/- and CIT(A) erred in confirming the same. In appeal No. ITA No. 8362/MUM/2025 for A.Y. 2015–16

Both the lower authorities erred in neither furnishing the statement recorded of the proprietor of “Swastik Corporation” nor in granting cross examination of the said proprietor.

The appellant submits that the reopening under section 147 was without juri iction, as the AO resorted to section 147 on the basis of borrowed satisfaction.

The learned CIT(A) / NFAC erred in ignoring the retraction issued by the sole proprietor of M/s Swastik Corporation, and which was relied on by the Tribunal in the proprietor's own case.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that the reassessment under section 147 is invalid, and requires to be cancelled.

The learned CIT(A) / NFAC erred in ignoring the additional evidence submitted vide letter dated 4th December, 2023 and relied upon in the written submissions before CIT(A) / NFAC.

The CIT(A) / NFAC erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,83,822/- being purchase of gold coins from M/s Swastik Corporation which were used for business promotion / staff welfare.

Having regard to the facts of the case, the Appellant submits the AO be directed to delete the disallowance of Rs. 3,83,822/- made on the allegation that the said purchase was a bogus purchase.

Both the lower authorities erred in not granting credit for Rs. 5,50,000/- paid by way of advance tax, although appearing in Form 26AS and granted credit for in the intimation under section 143(1).

Both the lower authorities erred in not granting credit for Rs. 3,25,917/- paid by way of TDS, although appearing in Form 26AS and granted credit for in the intimation under section 143(1).

The AO erred in levying interest under section 234A of Rs. 1,770/-/- and CIT(A) erred in confirming the same.

The AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of Rs. 26,928/- and under section 234C of Rs. 6,423/- and CIT(A) erred in confirming the same. In appeal No. ITA No. 8363/MUM/2025 for A.Y. 2016–17

Both the lower authorities erred in neither furnishing the statement recorded of the proprietor of “Swastik Corporation” nor in granting cross examination of the said proprietor.

The appellant submits that the reopening under section 147 was without juri iction, as the AO resorted to section 147 on the basis of borrowed satisfaction.

The learned CIT(A) / NFAC erred in ignoring the retraction issued by the sole proprietor of M/s Swastik Corporation, and which was relied on by the Tribunal in the proprietor's own case.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that the reassessment under section 147 is invalid, and requires to be cancelled.

The learned CIT(A) / NFAC erred in ignoring the additional evidence submitted vide letter dated 4th December, 2023 and relied upon in the written submissions before CIT(A) / NFAC.

The NFAC / CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,91,304/- being purchase of gold coins from M/s Swastik Corporation which was used for business promotion / staff welfare.

Having regard to the facts of the case, the AO be directed to delete the disallowance of Rs. 3,91,304/- made on the allegation that the said purchase was a bogus purchase.

The NFAC erred in confirming the taxation of dividend income of Rs. 14,70,796/- which was exempt u/s 10(34) of the Act.

The NFAC erred in stating in its order that the AO has not made any addition or adjustment in its order resulting in reduction of business loss.

The NFAC erred in ignoring the fact that even though the Assessing Officer had not specifically dealt with the addition of dividend income in the body of the assessment order, the Assessing Officer had added the same in the computation sheet attached to the assessment order, whereunder there was reduction of business loss to the tune of Rs. 14,70,796/-, being dividend income exempt u/s 10(34) of the Act.

Having regard to the facts of the case, the AO be directed to delete the addition made of dividend received of Rs. 14,70,796/- which is exempt from tax u/s 10(34) of the Act.

The AO erred in levying interest under section 234A of Rs. 63,283/- and CIT(A) erred in confirming the same.

The AO erred in levying interest under section 234B of Rs. 4,14,216/- and under section 234D of Rs. 1,17,087/- and CIT(A) erred in confirming the same. In appeal No. ITA No. 8364/MUM/2025 for A.Y. 2017–18

Both the lower authorities erred in neither furnishing the statement recorded of the proprietor of “Swastik Corporation” nor in granting cross examination of the said proprietor.

The appellant submits that the reopening under section 147 was without juri iction, as the AO resorted to section 147 on the basis of borrowed satisfaction.

The learned CIT(A) / NFAC erred in ignoring the retraction issued by the sole proprietor of M/s Swastik Corporation, and which was relied on by the Tribunal in the proprietor's own case.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellant submits that the reassessment under section 147 is invalid, and requires to be cancelled.

The learned CIT(A) / NFAC erred in ignoring the additional evidence submitted vide letter dated 4th December, 2023 and relied upon in the written submissions before CIT(A) / NFAC.

The NFAC / CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,91,403/- being purchase of gold coins from M/s Swastik Corporation which was used for business promotion / staff welfare.

Having regard to the facts of the case, the AO be directed to delete the disallowance of Rs. 3,91,403/- made on the allegation that the said purchase was a bogus purchase.

During the course of hearing before us the learned Authorised Representative (AR) submitted that the issues involved are common in all the years, except for a limited issue relating to dividend income in Assessment Year 2016–17. It was submitted that, for the sake of convenience, Assessment Year 2014-15 may be treated as the lead year.

On facts, the AR submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of stock broking. As a long-standing and consistent business practice, the assessee purchases gold coins every year on the occasion of Diwali for distribution by way of gifts to its sub-brokers, employees and associates, as part of business promotion and staff welfare. It was submitted that the maximum gift given is a 5-gram gold coin and that the purchases were duly recorded in the books of account and debited to the Profit and Loss Account as business promotion expenses.

The AR submitted that the reassessment proceedings were initiated solely on the basis of a survey conducted under section 133A on 14.01.2017 in the case of Mr. Bijal Shah, proprietor of M/s Swastik Corporation, from whom the assessee had purchased gold coins. During the survey, a statement of Mr. Bijal Shah was recorded on 17.01.2017, wherein he allegedly admitted to issuing accommodation bills. However, within a week thereafter, on 24.01.2017, Mr. Bijal Shah retracted the said statement by filing a sworn affidavit, categorically stating that the statement recorded during survey was obtained under coercion, pressure and undue influence, and declaring the same to be null and void. The AR pointed out that, thereafter, in Mr. Bijal Shah's own case, the Revenue made additions on account of alleged commission income earned for providing accommodation entries. The Tribunal, in Mr. Bijal Shah's case for Assessment Year 2010– 11, vide order dated 24.07.2019, accepted the retraction and deleted the addition, holding that in the absence of corroborative evidence, no addition could be sustained. The said decision was subsequently followed by the Tribunal in Mr. Bijal Shah's own cases for Assessment Years 2011–12, 2012–13 and 2013–14 vide order dated 22.06.2021, and again for Assessment Year 2017–18 vide order dated 23.11.2021. It was emphasised that in none of the years has any addition ultimately survived in the hands of the seller, M/s Swastik Corporation, and the transactions have been accepted as genuine.

The AR submitted that, despite the above factual and legal position, notice under section 148 was issued to the assessee on 31.03.2021, i.e. more than four years after the alleged statement recorded during survey. It was contended that, on the date of reopening, the very foundation of the so-called “reason to believe” no longer existed, as the statement had already been retracted and the Tribunal had accepted such retraction in the case of the seller. Therefore, there was no tangible material available with the Assessing Officer to assume juri iction under section 147, and the reopening was based entirely on borrowed satisfaction.

On merits, the AR submitted that the purchases of gold coins were genuine and supported by cogent documentary evidence. Reliance was placed on the purchase bills issued by M/s Swastik Corporation, confirmation of delivery of gold coins from the said party, bank statements evidencing payment through account payee cheques, and the list of persons to whom the gold coins were distributed along with PAN details and quantities. It was submitted that part of this evidence was furnished during assessment proceedings, and additional evidence was filed before the CIT(A) by way of a letter dated 01.11.2023, as the Assessing Officer had granted only one day's time to respond to the show cause notice and proceeded to pass the assessment order on a Sunday, without waiting for a reasonable opportunity. The AR contended that merely because the assessee did not maintain a stock register, the purchases could not be treated as bogus, particularly when the assessee is not a dealer in gold and the gold was not held as stock-in-trade but distributed immediately for business purposes. It was further submitted that once the transaction has been accepted as genuine in the hands of the seller by the Tribunal, it necessarily follows that the same transaction cannot be treated as bogus in the hands of the buyer.

It was submitted that the Assessing Officer erred in making the disallowance under section 37(1) solely on the basis of third- party information, without bringing any independent material on record to show that the expenditure was not incurred for business purposes. The CIT(A), according to the AR, erred in confirming the addition by ignoring the retraction affidavit, the binding Tribunal orders in the case of the seller, and the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee.

Accordingly, the AR submitted that the disallowance of expenditure on purchase of gold coins made under section 37(1) for all the assessment years deserves to be deleted. Consequential grounds relating to interest and penalty were stated to be consequential in nature.

The learned Departmental Representative (DR) supported the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) and relied heavily on the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment. The learned DR submitted that the reopening was based on specific and tangible information received from the Investigation Wing and was not a case of mere suspicion or conjecture.

The learned DR submitted that the above reasons clearly demonstrate that the Assessing Officer had received specific, credible and actionable information from the Investigation Wing regarding the alleged accommodation entry transaction involving the assessee and M/s Swastik Corporation. It was contended that, at the stage of reopening, the Assessing Officer is only required to form a prima facie belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, and not to conclusively establish escapement of income. Accordingly, the learned DR submitted that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated and the additions made by the Assessing Officer, as confirmed by the CIT(A), deserve to be upheld.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the material placed on record and examined the orders of the lower authorities. The issue for consideration is whether the expenditure incurred by the assessee towards purchase of gold coins from M/s Swastik Corporation, claimed as business promotion and staff welfare expenditure, could be disallowed under section 37(1) of the Act by treating the purchases as bogus. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee is engaged in the business of stock broking and is not a trader in gold or jewellery. The consistent case of the assessee is that gold coins were purchased every year on the occasion of Diwali as a long-standing business practice and were distributed immediately to employees, sub-brokers and associates for business promotion and staff welfare. The purchases are supported by invoices issued by M/s Swastik Corporation and the payments have admittedly been made through account payee cheques. The expenditure has been duly recorded in the books of account and debited to the Profit and Loss Account. The disallowance has been made solely on the basis of information emanating from a survey conducted under section 133A in the case of the seller, M/s Swastik Corporation, and the statement of its proprietor, Shri Bijal Shah, recorded on 17.01.2017. It is also a matter of record that the said statement was retracted by Shri Bijal Shah on oath by way of an affidavit dated 24.01.2017, i.e. within a short span of time from the date of recording of the statement.

What is of crucial relevance is that the Coordinate Bench, in the case of Shri Bijal Shah himself, has examined the very same statement, its retraction and the surrounding circumstances. The Coordinate Bench, vide order dated 24.07.2019 for Assessment Year 2010–11, accepted the retraction and held that, in the absence of corroborative evidence, no addition could be sustained in the hands of the seller on the allegation of providing accommodation entries. The said view was consistently followed by the Tribunal in subsequent orders dated 22.06.2021 for Assessment Years 2011–12, 2012–13 and 2013–14, and again by order dated 23.11.2021 for Assessment Year 2017–18. Thus, in a series of binding orders, the Tribunal has categorically accepted the transactions as genuine in the hands of the seller, M/s Swastik Corporation.

Once the transactions have been examined threadbare and accepted as genuine in the hands of the seller by the Tribunal, it would be wholly incongruous to hold that the very same transactions are bogus in the hands of the buyer, namely the assessee. The Revenue has not brought on record any independent or tangible material to demonstrate that the assessee did not receive the gold coins or that the expenditure was not incurred for business purposes. The entire disallowance rests on third-party information and a statement which has already been retracted and judicially discredited in the seller's own case.

The objection of the Assessing Officer regarding non- maintenance of a stock register also does not advance the Revenue's case. The assessee is not a dealer in gold, the gold coins were not held as stock-in-trade and were admittedly distributed immediately (list of persons to whom gold coins were distributed for business promotion with quantity of gold distributed and identity of each recipient of gold coin was placed before CIT(A)). In such circumstances, the absence of a stock register cannot be a determinative factor to hold the purchases as bogus.

In our considered view, the Assessing Officer has failed to discharge the burden of establishing that the expenditure was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business. The CIT(A) also erred in confirming the disallowance by ignoring the binding Tribunal orders in the case of the seller and by placing undue reliance on a retracted statement without independent corroboration.

Accordingly, the disallowance made under section 37(1) on account of purchase of gold coins for all the assessment years under consideration cannot be sustained on merits and is liable to be deleted.

Before concluding, it is apposite to examine the chronology of events, which has a direct bearing both on the assumption of juri iction as well as on the merits of the addition: 14.01.2017: Survey under section 133A conducted in the case of Shri Bijal Shah, proprietor of M/s Swastik Corporation. 17.01.2017: Statement of Shri Bijal Shah recorded during survey. 24.01.2017: Retraction affidavit filed by Shri Bijal Shah on oath, withdrawing the survey statement. 24.07.2019: Tribunal order in the case of Shri Bijal Shah for Assessment Year 2010–11, accepting the retraction and deleting the addition. 22.06.2021: Tribunal orders in the case of Shri Bijal Shah for Assessment Years 2011–12, 2012–13 and 2013-14, following the earlier order and holding the transactions to be genuine. 23.11.2021: Tribunal order in the case of Shri Bijal Shah for Assessment Year 2017–18, again accepting the genuineness of transactions. 31.03.2021: Notice under section 148 issued to the assessee for the years under consideration.

It is evident from the above chronology that, on the date of issuance of notice under section 148, not only had the statement of Shri Bijal Shah already been retracted, but the Co-ordinate Bench had also, by order dated 24.07.2019, accepted such retraction and negated the allegation of accommodation entries in the seller's own case. Subsequent Tribunal orders, including those dated 22.06.2021 and 23.11.2021, have consistently reiterated the same position.

In such a factual backdrop, the very substratum of the allegation that the purchases were bogus stood eroded. This chronology reinforces the conclusion that the addition made on merits under section 37(1) is unsustainable.

Since the disallowances made under section 37(1) of the Act for all the assessment years under consideration arise from the same set of facts, common modus operandi alleged by the Assessing Officer, and identical reasoning adopted in the assessment orders, we have dealt with the issue in a consolidated manner.

In view of our detailed findings on merits, and respectfully following the binding orders of the co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Bijal Shah, proprietor of M/s Swastik Corporation, we hold that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under section 37(1) of the Act on account of purchase of gold coins is unsustainable.

Accordingly, the disallowance made under section 37(1) is deleted for all the assessment years under appeal, as under: i.

We now take up the ground raised by the assessee in Assessment Year 2016–17 relating to the taxation of dividend income of Rs. 14,70,796/-, which was claimed as exempt under section 10(34) of the Act.

It is an undisputed fact, as reiterated by the learned AR, that during the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2016– 17, the assessee earned dividend income of Rs. 14,70,796/-. The said dividend income was credited to the Profit and Loss Account and was disclosed under the head “Other Income”(as per Note “O” paper book page No,14 for the A.Y. 2016-17). Since the dividend income was exempt under section 10(34) of the Act, the assessee reduced the said amount while computing the income under the head “Profits and Gains of Business or Profession", and accordingly returned a business loss.

The return of income was originally processed under section 143(1), wherein the claim of exemption in respect of dividend income was accepted and the business loss returned by the assessee was also accepted. Even in the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer, in the body of the reassessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 147, did not make any specific addition on account of dividend income and, in fact, accepted the returned figures as such. However, while preparing the computation sheet annexed to the reassessment order, the Assessing Officer added the dividend income of Rs. 14,70,796/- to the total income, thereby reducing the business loss and resulting in a higher assessed income, which is inconsistent with the findings recorded in the body of the assessment order.

The CIT(A), upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the reasoning that the dividend income stood added in the computation and that the assessment resulted in reduction of business loss. The CIT(A) did not appreciate the assessee's contention that no addition on this account was made in the body of the reassessment order and that the addition arose only due to an apparent computational inconsistency.

We have considered the submissions and perused the assessment order as well as the computation sheet annexed thereto. On careful examination, we find merit in the contention of the assessee.

Firstly, it is not in dispute that the dividend income of Rs. 14,70,796/- is exempt under section 10(34) of the Act for the year under consideration. There is no allegation by the Assessing Officer that the dividend income does not qualify for exemption, nor is there any reference in the reassessment order to deny the exemption claimed by the assessee.

Secondly, it is evident from the reassessment order that the Assessing Officer has not made any conscious or reasoned addition of dividend income in the body of the order. The addition appears only in the computation sheet attached to the assessment order, resulting in a contradiction between the assessment order and the computation.

It is well settled that where there is a conflict between the reasoning recorded in the assessment order and the computation sheet, the findings recorded in the assessment order must prevail. An addition cannot be sustained merely on the basis of a computational adjustment, in the absence of any discussion or finding by the Assessing Officer justifying such addition.

Thirdly, even otherwise, once the dividend income is exempt under section 10(34), the same cannot be brought to tax indirectly by reducing the business loss, without any statutory sanction. The action of the Assessing Officer amounts to taxing exempt income through the back door, which is impermissible in law.

In our considered view, the addition of dividend income of Rs. 14,70,796/- made in the computation sheet is patently erroneous and unsustainable. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the same without appreciating that no such addition was made in the reassessment order itself and that the income was admittedly exempt.

Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition of dividend income of Rs. 14,70,796/- made in the computation sheet for Assessment Year 2016–17. The ground raised by the assessee on this issue is allowed. Grounds relating to validity of reassessment under section 147

At the time of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative expressly stated that Ground No. 2 is not pressed. The same is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed.

The assessee has raised multiple grounds challenging the assumption of juri iction under section 147 of the Act, inter alia, on the basis of borrowed satisfaction, non-application of mind, invalid service of notice under section 148 and violation of principles of natural justice.

We have already deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer on merits, being the sole basis of reassessment, after examining the entire factual matrix and the binding judicial precedents relied upon by the assessee. In such circumstances, adjudication of the juri ictional grounds becomes academic in nature.

Accordingly, the grounds challenging the validity of reassessment under section 147 are not adjudicated, being rendered infructuous. Grounds relating to reliance on third-party statement and denial of cross-examination

The assessee has also raised grounds contending that the Assessing Officer erred in relying upon the statement of the proprietor of M/s Swastik Corporation without furnishing the same and without granting an opportunity of cross-examination. In view of the deletion of the substantive additions under section 37(1) on merits, after considering the evidentiary value of the statement, its retraction and the binding Tribunal orders in the case of the said proprietor, these grounds do not survive independently. The same are allowed for statistical purposes. Grounds relating to levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D

The grounds relating to levy of interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D are consequential in nature. The Assessing Officer is directed to recompute the interest, if any, in accordance with law while giving effect to this order. These grounds are allowed for statistical purposes. Grounds relating to initiation of penalty proceedings

The grounds challenging the initiation of penalty proceedings are premature. In any event, as the substantive additions do not survive, the penalty proceedings also cannot survive. These grounds are allowed. Grounds relating to grant of credit for advance tax and TDS

The assessee has raised grounds relating to non-grant of credit for advance tax and tax deducted at source. We direct the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee with reference to Form 26AS and grant due credit in accordance with law while giving effect to this order. These grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed in the manner indicated above. Order pronounced in the open court on 22.01.2026. (AMIT SHUKLA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated 22/01/2026 Disha Raut, Stenographer (MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. संबंधित आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयुक्त (अपील) / Concerned CIT 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, मुम्बई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, सत्यापित प्रति //// 1. उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Asst.