ITO 5.3.1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. UBIQUE ALLOYS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3202/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 August 2024AY 2009-10Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, HON'BLE (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect in the grievance of the revenue was less than Rs.50 Lakhs. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in light of CBDT Circular No. 17/2019.

What were the facts?

The revenue preferred an appeal against the order dated 18/04/2024 by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which pertained to AY 2009-10. The grievance was that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of interest paid on unsecured loans, which was added under section 68 of the Act for AY 2007-08.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of interest paid on unsecured loans, and if the tax effect below Rs. 50 Lakhs warrants dismissal of the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Singh, A/R
For Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. D/R
Hearing: 28/08/2024Pronounced: 28/08/2024

सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 28/08/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 28/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R

PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM :

1.

This appeal by the revenue is preferred against the order dated 18/04/2024 by learned Commissioner of Income (Appeals), Addl./JCIT(A), Madurai, [in short ‘ld. CIT(A)] pertaining to AY 2009- 10.

2.

The grievance of the revenue reads as under:- “1.The Ld. Addl/Jt.CIT(A) is not correct to conclude that the base of disallowance made of interest paid, is addition m`ade u/s. 68 in A. Y. 2007-08. The Ld. Addl/Jt.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the concrete information received from Investigation wing which was gathered from the search action conducted in the group concerns of Bhanwarlal Jain, is the primary evidence which is not decided as invalid by CIT(A) or by ITAT in A.Y. 2007-08. 2.The Ld. Addl/ Jt.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that, the assessment order of A.Y. 2007-08 was quashed by CIT(A) on the technical ground and was not decided on merit.

2 3.The Ld. Addl./Jt.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that, Hon'ble ITAT has dismissed departments appeal for A.Y. 2007-08 on technical ground only and not on merit of the case. 4.The Ld. Addl./Jt.CIT(A) failed to appreciate that, the assessment order of A.Y. 2007-08 was not quashed by CIT(A) on the merit of the case hence the primary evidence i.e. information available on record has the valid evidential value on the basis of which disallowance of interest made by AO in the current year is valid and legal. 5.The appellant prays that the order of the Addl./Jt. CIT(A), Madurai on the grounds be set aside and confirm the order of the AO.

6.

The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter all or any of the grounds of appeal.”

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →