OM SHANTI RELTORS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-20(2)(3), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to file additional evidence to prove the genuineness of the transactions and the creditworthiness of the loan parties. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for consideration of this new evidence.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a property developer, claimed interest expenses on unsecured loans. The Assessing Officer disallowed the interest and added the principal loan amount to income, citing that the lenders were paper companies providing accommodation entries and were not found at their addresses. The CIT(A) upheld this decision.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee proved the genuineness of unsecured loans and the related interest expenditure, and if additional evidence should be admitted at the appellate stage.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(4)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.
- Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah v. CIT186 citing231 ITR 1 · 1998 · HC
- H.R. Mehta v. ACIT175 citing387 ITR 561 · 2016 · HC
- PCIT v. Ambe Tradecorp (P.) Ltd.14 citing290 Taxmann 471 · 2023 · HC · Read judgment
- 471 (Gujarat HC) 4. CIT v. Kapoor Chand Mangesh Chand7 citing218 Taxmann 157 · 2013 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI. PRASHANT MAHARSHI & SHRI. RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN
PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.):
The assessee has instituted the present appeal for the A. Y. 2015-16 wherein the Appellant has challenged the order dated 19.10.2023 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] has been challenged. Om Shanti Realtors
The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under: -
The assessee e-filed the return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 30.09.201
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 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
