ITA No. 3599/MUM/2024

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee e-filed his return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 on 31.10.2018, declaring total income of Rs. 64,39,970/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under the e-assessment scheme, 2019 on the issue of business expenses. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. After considering the reply of the assessee, learned assessing officer added Rs. 49,54,811/- on account of disallowance of expenses u/s. 40A(3) of the Act. Aggrieved by the assessment order, assessee preferred first appeal before learned CIT(A), who dismissed assessee’s appeal ex-parte. Assessee has filed this second appeal on the ground that learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the aforesaid addition as the said provision could not be invoked in the year under consideration.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition as the said provision could not be invoked in the year under consideration?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Mahajan Leasing & Credit P. Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-16(2)

  Delhi Bench 'C' benchAY 2010-11Allowed

• Ayub Khan Vs. The ITO

  Jodhpur bench

• Venus County Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. The ACIT

  Chandigarh bench

• V.P. Abdul Kareem vs. Income Tax Officer

  Cochin bench

• M/s. Rajashree Grandhim Foundation vs. CIT (Exemptions)

  Bangalore bench

• Sahara India Limited v. ACIT, Central Circle-I, Lucknow

  Delhi Bench benchAY 1996-97, 1997-98, 1998-99, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2003-04Partly Allowed