ACIT-2(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. BETTER VALUE LEASING AND FINANCE LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2745/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 October 2024AY 2018-19Bench: SMT BEENA PILLAI (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The CIT(A)/NFAC allowed the assessee's claims, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus and that the evidence supported the business expenditure. However, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC may not have conducted proper verification of the documents.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed its return reporting a total income of Rs. 1,18,08,600/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions of Rs. 1,29,00,394/- for disallowing professional/consultancy receipts and Rs. 108,88,62,567/- as unexplained cash credits, and also disallowed interest paid on loans.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC correctly deleted the additions made by the AO without proper verification, and whether the matter should be remanded for de novo verification by the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 37,Section 68,Section 142(1),Section 143(2),Section 144B,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI

Before: SMT BEENA PILLAI & SMT RENU JAUHRI

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sathe
For Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya, CIT DR
Hearing: 08.10.2024Pronounced: 30.10.2024

O R D E R Per Beena Pillai, JM:

More judgments on Section 37

All 4,334 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →