TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 379
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax, Appeal, CIT(A)-50, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)"] pertaining to assessment orders passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153(A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] for Assessment Years [A.Ys.] 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14. All the above stated appeals are interrelated involving identical grounds of appeal and also these appeals have been heard together, therefore, they are being adjudicated in this composite order for the sake of brevity. We take up the appeal in the case of ITA No. 1695/MUM/2025 first, which is taken as „Lead Case‟ and the decision herein would apply mutatis mutandis on identical issues. 2. ITA No. 1695/MUM/2026(AY 2011-12) The grounds of the appeals are as under: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment year declaring the total income of Rs. 4,84,597/-. A search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act was carried out on 18.02.2014 on M/s Pee Jay Group and consequent to search action, the AO issued notice u/s. 153A of the Act and in response he filed return declaring total income Rs. 6,63,34,600/-. The assessment was framed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act and assessing the total income of Rs. 6,99,73,748/-. The difference between the returned income and assessed income had arisen due to addition of Rs. 34,89,150/- (Rs. 7,82,000/- on account of Commission paid in cash and disallowance of interest paid of Rs. 27,07,150/-). 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority claiming that the AO ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mounting to Rs. 7,82,000/- and same was added in the assessment order. 5.1 The ld.CIT(A) observed that since the interest was paid on unsecured loans which the assessee himself admitted as accommodation entries the claim of interest could not be allowed as expenses. Therefore, the AO had rightly made addition of Rs. 27,07,150/- in the assessment order which was confirmed. As regard the payment of commission of Rs. 7,82,000/- on accommodation entries taken by the assessee from the said Group, he concurred with the views of AO that for taking accommodation entries one needs to pay certain amount of commission otherwise. He, therefore, confirmed the addition of Rs. 7,82,000/- made as well. 6. Before us, the ld.AR has contested the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(AY 2012-13) 1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and on facts and deserves to be quashed. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 50,14,000/- towards disallowance of interest merely on the basis of admission during search without any incriminating material or Independent evidence. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that admission made during search proceedings under pressure and stress cannot be sole basis for disallowance of genuine business expenditure. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 13,74,000/- towards alleged commission purely on presumption without any evidence of payment, documents, statements or material on record. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) failed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and are exactly identical barring figurative difference as dealt with in the appeal for AY 2011-12(supra). Therefore, decision rendered therein paras 7 and 7.1 apply mutatis mutandis in the instant appeal. 13. In the result, which is therefore, partly allowed. 14. ITA No. 1766/MUM/2026(AY 2013-14) 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Interest of Rs. 13,89,750/- without appreciating that the interest expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business and pald through banking channels after deduction of TDS. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in relying upon alleged admission obtained under pressure during search proceedings without any corroborative material evidence. 3....