ITAT Mumbai Judgments — October 2023

SALONI JEWELLERS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE-DELHI, MUMBAI

ITA 1003/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: Disposed25 Oct 2023AY 2018-2019Remanded

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without proper hearing. Considering the assessee's circumstances, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

HATHWAY CABLE AND DATACOM LIMITED,MUMBAI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2322/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed25 Oct 2023AY 2020-21Remanded

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's revised workings which considered all relevant indirect expenses. It directed the AO to examine all types of workings provided by the assessee before resorting to Rule 8D.

MURLIMANOHAR CHETANDAS AGARWAL,MUMBAI vs DCIT 19(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2388/MUM/2023[2007-08]Status: Disposed25 Oct 2023AY 2007-08Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) was required to decide the grounds on merit even in the absence of the assessee's representation, as per Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act. Since the CIT(A) did not decide the issue on merit, the order was set aside.

LAXMAN MAHADEV PATIL (LEGAL HEIR HEMANT LAXMAN PATIL),LAXMAN PATIL HOUSE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER 41(2)(3) EARLIER ASSESSED WITH ITO 29(2)(2)., KAUTILYA BHAVAN,

ITA 2555/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed25 Oct 2023AY 2011-12Remanded

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) failed to address the assessee's grounds of appeal and dismissed the appeal solely for non-appearance, violating the statutory requirement to provide a speaking order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

SHEKHAR GAJANAN GOVEKAR (REPRESENTATIVE OF LATE GAJANAN MAHABALESHWAR GOVEKAR),MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER 42(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2758/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed25 Oct 2023AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, citing principles of natural justice and the need for the assessee to be heard.

SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST (SHIRDI),MUMBAI vs DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) 2(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3010/MUM/2022[2015-2016]Status: Disposed25 Oct 2023AY 2015-2016Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the interest income from corpus funds was not eligible for exemption under Section 11(1)(d) as it was not a voluntary donation with specific instructions. However, expenses incurred out of such interest income towards the trust's objects were allowed as application of income.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) 2(1), MUMBAI vs SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST (SHIRDI), MUMBAI

ITA 3049/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: Disposed25 Oct 2023AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the interest income from corpus funds was not eligible for exemption under Section 11(1)(d) as it was not a voluntary donation with specific instructions. However, expenses incurred out of such interest income towards the trust's objects were allowed as application of income.

DY. COMMISSIONER O INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST(SHIRDI), MUMBAI

ITA 3209/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: Disposed25 Oct 2023AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the interest income from corpus funds was not eligible for exemption under Section 11(1)(d) as it was not a voluntary donation with specific instructions. However, expenses incurred out of this interest income towards the trust's objects were allowed as application of income.

DY. COMMISSIONER O INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION)-2(1), MUMBAI vs SHREE SAI BABA SANSTHAN TRUST(SHIRDI), MUMBAI

ITA 3210/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: Disposed25 Oct 2023AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the interest income from corpus funds was not eligible for exemption under Section 11(1)(d) as it was not a voluntary donation with specific instructions. However, expenses incurred out of such interest income towards the trust's objects were allowed as application of income.

DCIT 22(3), MUMBAI vs TECH MAHINDRA LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3531/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: Disposed25 Oct 2023AY 2007-08Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that secondary adjustments for transfer pricing are not permissible if the primary adjustment relates to an assessment year commencing on or before April 1, 2016. The tribunal also decided that interest on loans to foreign AEs should be benchmarked at LIBOR plus 80 basis points, partly allowing the assessee's appeal on this ground.

TECH MAHINDRA LTD,MUMBAI vs DCIT CIR 2(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3643/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: Disposed25 Oct 2023AY 2007-08Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that secondary adjustments for transfer pricing are not permissible if the primary adjustment relates to an assessment year commencing before April 1, 2016. It also ruled that the interest rate on loans to foreign AEs should be based on LIBOR, with a specific rate determined for the assessee.

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD)-4(1)(1), MUMBAI vs CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 45/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed25 Oct 2023AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the disallowance of 10% of certain expenses, finding it to be ad hoc. It also directed the exclusion of a comparable company from the transfer pricing analysis due to an extraordinary event affecting its financials.

M/S. LUBRIZOL ADVANCED MATERIALS INDIA PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs ASSESSMENT UNIT (INCOME TAX DEPT), DELHI

ITA 464/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed25 Oct 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed beyond the mandatory time limit stipulated in Section 144C(13) of the Act. Consequently, the assessment order was deemed void-ab-initio.

UNIVERSAL COMFORT PRODUCTS LIMITED (SINCE AMALGAMATED WITH VOLTAS LIMITED ),MUMBAI vs DCIT, CIRCLE 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 498/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed25 Oct 2023AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent company post-amalgamation is void ab initio and invalid. The participation of the assessee in the assessment proceedings does not rectify this substantive illegality.

UNIVERSAL COMFORT PRODUCTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs DCIT, CIRCLE 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 499/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed25 Oct 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent company post-amalgamation is void ab initio and invalid. The participation of the assessee in the assessment proceedings does not rectify this substantive illegality.

DIU RESORTS PVT LIMITED,MUMBAI vs ACIT 9 (3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 532/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: Disposed25 Oct 2023AY 2013-2014Remanded

The Tribunal held that merely filing confirmation letters and IT acknowledgements does not discharge the assessee's initial burden under Section 68. The assessee needs to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions, which was not adequately done.

CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), MUMBAI

ITA 72/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed25 Oct 2023AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the disallowance of 10% of certain expenses, finding it to be ad hoc. It also directed the exclusion of a comparable company from the transfer pricing analysis due to an extraordinary event affecting its financials.

INCOME TAX OFFICER-22(3)(6), MUMBAI vs SAMBHAV SHELTER, MUMBAI

ITA 811/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: Disposed25 Oct 2023AY 2018-2019Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the discrepancies in the tax audit report were due to inadvertent data entry errors, which were subsequently rectified. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee followed the percentage completion method for revenue recognition in real estate development.

GRISHMA HEMANSHU MODY,MUMBAI vs CIT(APPEALS), DELHI

ITA 895/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed25 Oct 2023AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO did not conduct sufficient examination to prove the loan was an accommodation entry, especially since the assessee had discharged the initial burden. The statement relied upon by the AO was also retracted by the director.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 35, MUMBAI vs M/S. MARICO INDUSTRIES LTD, MUMBAI

ITSSA 27/MUM/2003[Block Period 1988-1997]Status: Disposed25 Oct 2023Allowed

The Tribunal held that the block assessment order passed under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 31.12.1999, does not survive, and the legal issue raised by the assessee is decided in their favour. The Tribunal quashed the block assessment order, following the Hon'ble High Court's decision in its own case. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee on the merits of the additions became academic and were not adjudicated. The Tribunal noted that the revenue is at liberty to proceed against the assessee as observed by the Hon'ble High Court in appropriate proceedings. Regarding the penalty appeals, the Tribunal held that the penalty levied under section 158BFA of the Act, which was partly confirmed by the CIT(A), is deleted on the principle of legal maxim 'Sublato Fundamento credit opus'. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in Badarinath Vs. Tamilnadu, holding that once the basis of a proceeding is gone, all consequential orders and acts would fall automatically. Therefore, the appeals of the assessee were allowed, and the appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

M/S. MARICO IND. LTD., ,MUMBAI vs DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 35, MUMBAI

ITSSA 63/MUM/2001[1988-97]Status: Disposed25 Oct 2023AY 1988-97Allowed

The Tribunal held that the block assessment order passed under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 31.12.1999, does not survive, and the legal issue raised by the assessee is decided in their favour. The Tribunal quashed the block assessment order, following the Hon'ble High Court's decision in its own case. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee on the merits of the additions became academic and were not adjudicated. The Tribunal noted that the revenue is at liberty to proceed against the assessee as observed by the Hon'ble High Court in appropriate proceedings. Regarding the penalty appeals, the Tribunal held that the penalty levied under section 158BFA of the Act, which was partly confirmed by the CIT(A), is deleted on the principle of legal maxim 'Sublato Fundamento credit opus'. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in Badarinath Vs. Tamilnadu, holding that once the basis of a proceeding is gone, all consequential orders and acts would fall automatically. Therefore, the appeals of the assessee were allowed, and the appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

M/S. MARICO INDUSTRIES LTD,MUMBAI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 35, MUMBAI

ITSSA 661/MUM/2002[1988-97]Status: Disposed25 Oct 2023AY 1988-97Allowed

The Tribunal held that the block assessment order passed under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 31.12.1999, does not survive, and the legal issue raised by the assessee is decided in their favour. The Tribunal quashed the block assessment order, following the Hon'ble High Court's decision in its own case. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee on the merits of the additions became academic and were not adjudicated. The Tribunal noted that the revenue is at liberty to proceed against the assessee as observed by the Hon'ble High Court in appropriate proceedings. Regarding the penalty appeals, the Tribunal held that the penalty levied under section 158BFA of the Act, which was partly confirmed by the CIT(A), is deleted on the principle of legal maxim 'Sublato Fundamento credit opus'. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in Badarinath Vs. Tamilnadu, holding that once the basis of a proceeding is gone, all consequential orders and acts would fall automatically. Therefore, the appeals of the assessee were allowed, and the appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

VASANI ENTERPRISES,THANE vs ACIT CIRCLE 2, KALYAN

ITA 2113/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed24 Oct 2023AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity of hearing to present their case with evidence, adhering to principles of natural justice.

THE SAGRESHWAR CO-OP CREDIT LIMITED,MUMBAI vs ITO 20(3)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 1273/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed24 Oct 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a cooperative credit society, acted as a custodian of its members' money, and the deposited cash belonged to the members, not the society. Therefore, the addition under Section 69A was incorrect.

VIVEK RAGHU SHETTY,MUMBAI vs ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAICIRCLE-32(3), MUMBAI

ITA 979/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: Disposed24 Oct 2023AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial burden by providing documentary evidence to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders. The AO failed to controvert this evidence and relied solely on a retracted statement.

M/S. TRUSTAR DIAMOND,MUMBAI vs ACIT, CIRCLE-19(3), MUMBAI

ITA 748/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed23 Oct 2023AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal, following the principle of consistency and previous assessment orders for the assessee, directed the AO to restrict the addition to 3% of the bogus purchases. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

JAYESH VINODKUMAR TANNA,MUMBAI vs ACIT-25(3), MUMBAI

ITA 1152/MUM/2023[2007-08]Status: Disposed23 Oct 2023AY 2007-08Allowed

The Tribunal held that since the addition made under Section 143(3) was already included in the total income computed by the Settlement Commission, sustaining the addition by the CIT(A) was not justified.

VIVEK RAGHU SHETTY,MUMBAI vs ASSTT. COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-32(3), MUMBAI

ITA 980/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: Disposed23 Oct 2023AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial burden by providing documentary evidence to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders. The AO failed to controvert this evidence and relied solely on a retracted statement.

RAJENDRA GOKULDAS PAREKH,MUMBAI vs ITO WARD 27(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1869/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed23 Oct 2023AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that while the assessee was not directly involved, his association with the employer's bogus business activities warranted an addition. However, the addition was reduced from 1% to 0.05% of the gross amount for one issue and from 30% to 15% of cash deposits for another, considering the assessee had already declared some income and was acting as a benami.

EVERSMILE PROPERTIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2366/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: Disposed23 Oct 2023AY 2009-2010Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing bonafide reasons. It restored the case to the CIT(A) for a de novo decision on merits, emphasizing the need for proper opportunity to the assessee.

EVERSMILE PROPERTIES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs DCIT, CIRCLE-10(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2367/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed23 Oct 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing bonafide reasons. It restored the case to the CIT(A) for a de novo decision on merits, emphasizing the need for proper opportunity to the assessee.

CENTRAL ENGINEERING WORKS,MUMBAI vs NATIONAL FACELESS APPEL CENTRE, DELHI

ITA 2082/MUM/2023[2009-2010]Status: Disposed23 Oct 2023AY 2009-2010Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed made compliance before the CIT(A) and submitted documents. Since the case was decided ex-parte at both levels, the Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

MOHAMMED FARAAZ DOSANI,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER 20(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2221/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed23 Oct 2023AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently demonstrated the source of cash deposits through bank statements, cash books, and a gift deed. Since the Assessing Officer did not present contrary material, the addition was deemed unjustified.

VIVEK RAGHU SHETTY,MUMBAI vs ASSTT CIT CIRCLE-32(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI.

ITA 978/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: Disposed23 Oct 2023AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had offered the profit from share trading as business income and had not claimed any capital gains exemption. The transactions were made on recognized stock exchanges, and the lower authorities did not controvert these facts.

VIVEK RAGHU SHETTY,MUMBAI vs ASSTT CIT,CIRCLE-32(3), MUMBAI.

ITA 977/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: Disposed23 Oct 2023AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial burden by providing documentary evidence to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders. The AO failed to controvert this evidence and relied solely on a retracted statement.

VIVEK RAGHU SHETTY,MUMBAI vs ASSTT CIT, CIRCLE-32(3), MUMBAI

ITA 976/MUM/2022[2009-10]Status: Disposed23 Oct 2023AY 2009-10Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial burden by providing documentary evidence to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders. The AO failed to controvert this evidence and relied solely on a retracted statement.

VIVEK RAGHU SHETTY,MUMBAI vs ASSTT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-32(3), MUMBAI

ITA 975/MUM/2022[2008-09]Status: Disposed23 Oct 2023AY 2008-09Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial burden by providing documentary evidence to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders. The AO failed to controvert this evidence and relied solely on a retracted statement.

SHAMS TABREZ GULAM MADNI ANSARI,MUMBAI vs DCIT CIRCLE 21(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2286/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: Disposed23 Oct 2023AY 2016-17Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case and evidence, adhering to principles of natural justice.

SUREKHA ARVIND JAIN,MUMBAI vs THE ITO WARD-32(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2289/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed23 Oct 2023AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication, citing principles of natural justice. The assessee is to be given an adequate opportunity to present their case with evidence.

LEENA INDER JAIN,MUMBAI vs THE ITO, WARD-41(4)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2290/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed23 Oct 2023AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal allowed grounds 1 to 3, finding that the AO and CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions. For ground 4, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes and restored the issue to the AO for verification.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-22(1), MUMBAI vs MR BHUPESH HARISHCHANDRA RATHOD, MUMBAI

ITA 2301/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: Disposed23 Oct 2023AY 2011-2012Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the AO incorrectly added both profits and losses from penny stock trading. Only the net profit or loss derived from such transactions should be considered for addition to the total income.

CENTRAL ENGINEERING WORKS,MUMBAI vs NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL, DELHI

ITA 2083/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: Disposed23 Oct 2023AY 2010-2011Remanded

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed made compliance before the CIT(A) and submitted documents. Since the case was decided ex-parte at both levels, the Tribunal set aside the order and remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

RAJENDRA GOKULDAS PAREKH,MUMBAI vs ITO WARD 27(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1870/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed23 Oct 2023AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that while the assessee was not directly involved, his association with the employer's bogus business activities warranted an addition. However, the addition was reduced from 1% to 0.05% of the gross amount for one issue and from 30% to 15% of cash deposits for another, considering the assessee had already declared some income and was acting as a benami.

VIVEK RAGHU SHETTY,MUMBAI vs ASSTT CIT, CIRCLE-32(3), MUMBAI

ITA 981/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: Disposed23 Oct 2023AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial burden by providing documentary evidence to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders. The AO failed to controvert this evidence and relied solely on a retracted statement.

SHWETA SHYAM PEDAMKAR,MUMBAI vs ITO-25(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2447/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed23 Oct 2023AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. It granted the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) based on principles of natural justice.

MAFATLAL HARAKCHANDJI BOTHRA,MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 19(2)(3) MUMBAI, MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

ITA 2395/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: Disposed23 Oct 2023AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal followed a previous decision on identical facts for the same assessee. It held that the disallowance should be restricted to 5% of the non-genuine purchases, considering the profit element embedded in such transactions.

BARCELONA MERCANTILE COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs WARD 12(1)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2346/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed23 Oct 2023AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditor. The Tribunal found the CIT(A) erred in not following previous decisions in similar cases and directed the deletion of the addition.

CYQYATOR MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-6(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2370/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed23 Oct 2023AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The Tribunal admitted the assessee's revised working for disallowance under Section 14A and restored it to the Assessing Officer for re-examination. The Tribunal also accepted the assessee's prayer regarding the computation of book profits under Section 115JB.

VARSHA SHRIKANT PARANJAPE,MUMBAI vs ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 25(3), MUMBAI

ITA 3252/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed20 Oct 2023AY 2011-12Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment beyond 4 years was not valid as no new tangible material was brought on record. It was also noted that the income had already been assessed in the hands of co-owners, making the addition unjustified.

SUMATICHAND TOLAMAL GOUTI,MUMBAI vs DY CIT-CC-4(2), MUMBAI

ITA 673/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: Disposed20 Oct 2023AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions for making charges and wastage claims, which were based on parallel books of accounts and statements from labourers, were deleted as identical additions in a group concern were deleted by a co-ordinate bench. Regarding Section 68 additions, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its initial burden by providing identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of share subscribers, and the AO failed to disprove the same.