SHETH REALTORS,MUMBAI vs. ACIT-CC-7(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5947/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 January 2026AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of expenses related to non-genuine purchases, citing the assessee's failure to discharge the onus of proof. It also held that interest on delayed TDS payment is not deductible as business expenditure, following High Court precedents. The addition for delayed PF & ESIC payment was also confirmed based on a Supreme Court decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a real estate developer, claimed various expenses including material purchases and labour costs. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed a portion of these expenses due to non-response from parties to notices issued under section 133(6) and partial submission of documents by the assessee. The assessee also claimed deductions for interest on late payment of TDS and delayed payment of employee's contribution to PF & ESIC.

What were the issues?

Whether expenses claimed are genuine when parties fail to respond to section 133(6) notices, and whether interest on delayed TDS and delayed employee PF/ESIC contributions are allowable as business expenditure.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133(6),Section 143(3),Section 37(1),Section 201(1A),Section 36(1)(va)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(9)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, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI ARUN KHODPIASHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

For Appellant: Dr. K Shivram, Shri Rahul Hakkani
For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR

PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M.

The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 30/07/2025, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2018-19. 2

2.

In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: – “1. Ground No. 1 - Disallowances under addition made to Work in Progress for the year 2017-2018 of Rs. 52,94,101/-:

1.1.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of expenses amounting

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 133(6)

All 7,227 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133(6) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →