SAGAR SHOPPING DEVELOPERS,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3931/MUM/2023Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 April 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not produce any evidence nor participated in the appellate proceedings before them, similar to their conduct before the lower appellate authority. The Tribunal decided not to take a lenient view and remanded the matter back to the CIT Appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in real estate development, failed to respond to notices and provide evidence regarding a disallowance made by the Assessing Officer based on a Tax Audit Report. The disallowance related to an inadmissible reduction from Work-in-Progress (WIP) under Section 40(a) of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of WIP as inadmissible was justified and whether the assessee provided sufficient evidence to substantiate their claim.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a),Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY

For Respondent: Shri Prashant Mahajan, Sr. A.R

O R D E R

More judgments on Section 40(a)

All 100 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →