Kaalkaa Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Identity, Creditworthiness and Genuineness Established: Mumbai ITAT Deletes ₹25-Lakh Addition for Joint-Venture Advance
The assessee received ₹25 lakh from Minaxi Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. as an advance towards a joint-venture transaction and disclosed it under “Advances” in its balance sheet. The Assessing Officer made the addition on the ground that the assessee had failed to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the contributor and genuineness of the transaction.
The Mumbai ITAT noted that the assessee had furnished comprehensive evidence, including the contributor’s certificate of incorporation, PAN, income-tax return, audited financial statements, confirmation and affidavit. The contributor’s financial statements reflected shareholders’ funds exceeding ₹79.46 crore, demonstrating sufficient financial capacity.
The Tribunal further observed that identical transactions involving the same contributor had already been accepted by coordinate benches in the assessee’s own case and other connected matters. The Revenue neither identified any distinguishing fact nor produced any contrary binding decision.
Applying judicial consistency and binding precedent, the Tribunal held that the transaction stood adequately substantiated and directed deletion of the ₹25-lakh addition.
List of Cases Discussed / Relied Upon
- ITO-12(3)(2) v. Kaalkaa Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., ITA Nos. 1233/Mum/2020 and 1234/Mum/2020, order dated 19.10.2020, Mumbai ITAT, “G” Bench;
- ITO-14(3)(4) v. Supergold Properties Pvt. Ltd., ITA Nos. 177/Mum/2020 to 180/Mum/2020, orders dated 19.10.2020, Mumbai ITAT, “G” Bench;
- Goldcity Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Pr. CIT-14, ITA No. 2179/Mum/2019; and
- ITO-14(3)(4) v. Nextgen Construction Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 3593/Mum/2019.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. ADDL JCIT(A), Panaji vide DIN: ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1086595949(1) dated 26- Feb-2026 for the Assessment Year 2012-2013. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
| 1) | On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on merits in confirming the addition made by the Ld. A.O. of ₹25,00,000/-, being the sum received by the appellant from Minaxi Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. |
| 2) | 2) The appellant craves to add, amend, alter, substitute, and modify any OR all the above grounds of appeal, if necessary, on the basis of submissions to be made at the time of personal hearing. |
2. The only ground raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the addition of Rs. 25 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer on account of the sum received by the assessee from M/s. Minaxi Suppliers Private Limited (“MSPL”).
3. In this regard, the Assessing Officer observed from the records that the assessee had received a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs towards a joint venture transaction. The said amount was duly reflected in the balance sheet of the assessee under the head “Advances”. However, the Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee had failed to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor and the genuineness of the transaction and, accordingly, made an addition of Rs. 25 lakhs.
4. Before us, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the fact that the amount of Rs. 25 lakhs was received as an advance towards a joint venture and was duly disclosed by the assessee in its balance sheet. It was further submitted that the assessee had furnished sufficient documentary evidence before the Revenue Authorities to establish the identity and creditworthiness of MSPL as well as the genuineness of the transaction.
5. In this regard, our attention was drawn to the following documents furnished by the assessee before the Revenue Authorities:
a. Certificate of Incorporation of M/s. Minaxi Suppliers Private Limited;
b. Memorandum and Articles of Association of M/s. Minaxi Suppliers Private Limited;
c. Copy of PAN of M/s. Minaxi Suppliers Private Limited;
d. Acknowledgment of the Income Tax Return filed by M/s. Minaxi Suppliers Private Limited for A.Y. 2012-13;
e. Balance Sheet, Profit & Loss Account and schedules thereto of M/s. Minaxi Suppliers Private Limited for A.Y. 2012-13, wherein the shareholders’ funds as on 31.03.2012 were stated to be Rs. 79,46,62,117/-;
f. Directors’ Report of M/s. Minaxi Suppliers Private Limited for the year ended 31.03.2012;
g. Auditors’ Report of M/s. Minaxi Suppliers Private Limited for the year ended 31.03.2012;
h. Copy of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the case of M/s. Minaxi Suppliers Private Limited for A.Y. 2012- 13, dated 11.02.2015;
i. Confirmation from M/s. Minaxi Suppliers Private Limited; and
j. Affidavit dated 26.10.2019 furnished by M/s. Minaxi Suppliers Private Limited confirming the contribution of Rs. 25 lakhs towards the joint venture for the period 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012 and affirming the genuineness of the transaction.
6. The Ld. AR further submitted that the issue under consideration is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decisions of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case and in other cases involving the same lender, similar transactions and substantially identical facts. Reliance was placed, inter alia, on the following decisions:
- ITO-12(3)(2) v. Kaalkaa Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., ITA Nos. 1233/Mum/2020 and 1234/Mum/2020, order dated 19.10.2020, Mumbai ITAT, “G” Bench;
- ITO-14(3)(4) v. Supergold Properties Pvt. Ltd., ITA Nos. 177/Mum/2020 to 180/Mum/2020, orders dated 19.10.2020, Mumbai ITAT, “G” Bench;
- Goldcity Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Pr. CIT-14, ITA No. 2179/Mum/2019; and
- ITO-14(3)(4) v. Nextgen Construction Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 3593/Mum/2019.
7. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material placed on record, considered the judgments relied upon by the parties, and examined the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities.
8. From the records, we notice that the assessee had received a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs from M/s. Minaxi Suppliers Private Limited towards a joint venture transaction and that the said amount was duly reflected in the assessee’s balance sheet under the head “Advances”. The assessee had also furnished various documentary evidences in support of the identity and financial capacity of MSPL and the genuineness of the transaction.
9. We further notice that the issue under consideration has been examined by the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal in the cases relied upon by the Ld. AR, wherein the same lender, similar nature of transactions and substantially identical factual circumstances were involved.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and keeping in view the principle of judicial consistency and the doctrine of binding precedent, we respectfully follow the view already taken by the coordinate benches of the Tribunal in the aforesaid cases. No distinguishing facts or contrary binding decision has been brought to our notice by the Revenue which would warrant taking a different view in the present case.
11. Accordingly, respectfully following the decisions of the coordinate benches of the Tribunal and considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find merit in the contention of the assessee. The addition of Rs. 25 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is therefore not sustainable and is directed to be deleted. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed.
12. In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 20.08.2026.
