ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), MUMBAI V. GREENSCAPE KALPANA STRUCT CON, THANE

ITA 4568/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves multiple appeals by the Revenue against Greenscape Developers Private Limited concerning additions made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for various assessment years. The additions were based on the premise that the unsecured loans taken by the assessee were bogus and constituted unexplained cash credits. The CIT(A) had deleted these additions, leading to the Revenue's appeals. The Tribunal examined the evidences and submissions made by both parties, including the financial statements of the lender companies and the nature of the transactions. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had discharged its burden of proof regarding the loans' genuineness and the lenders' creditworthiness, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 788747 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 17-07-2025
• Other Referred Cases: GM/s Duke Business Pvt. Ltd. - ITA No: 1477/Mum/2017, M/s Josh Trading Pvt. Ltd. - ITA No: 2567/Mum/2022, M/s Atharv Business Pvt. Ltd. - ITA No: 2567/Mum/2022, M/s Sumukh Commercial Pvt. Ltd. - ITA No: 1477/Mum/2017, ITA No: 1477/Mum/2017, ITA No: 5589/Mum/2017, ITA No:3596 & 3597/Mum/2019, ITA No: 3647/Mum/2017, ITA No: 437/Hyd/2016, ITA No: 369/Mum/2017, ITA No: 37541/Mum/2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANI JAIN; PRATEEK JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: SWAPNIL CHOUDHARY
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings; Unexplained cash credit; Onus to prove; Principle of natural justice; TDS; Search and seizure; Accommodation entries; Opportunity of cross examination; Bogus
• Section: 148; 143(3); 68; 133(6); 133A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3698 4593 4594 4675 4687 4285 4346 & 4568/MUM/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13, 2014-15 to 2018-19 & 2020-21 Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 3(2), Mumbai Room No. 402, 4th Floor, Kautilya Bhawan, BKC, Mumbai 400051 vs Greenscape Developers Private Limited 1908, Plot No. 4 & 6, Cyber One Sector 30-a, Vashi, Navi Mumbai 400703 PAN: (AACCG4829L Appellant Respondent Present for: Appellant by : Shri Mani Jain and Prateek Jain, CA Respondent by : Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 06.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26.11.2025 O R D E R PER BENCH: Details of the captioned appeals filed by the Revenue are tabulated below: Sr. No. ITA No. Order of CIT(A) Assessment order Assess- ment year Appeal by No. Date Passed by Date Passe d u/s. 1. 3698/Mum /2025 ITBA/APL/ S/250/202 4-25/107 5053045(1) 26.03.2025 CIT(A) 51, Mumbai 23.12.2019 143(3) r.w.s. 147 2012- 13 Revenue 2. 4593/Mum /2025 ITBA/APL/ S/250/202 4-25/107 6741634(1) 05.06.2025 CIT(A) 51, Mumbai 08.03.2022 147 2014- 15 Revenue 3. 4594/Mum ITBA/APL/S/ 10.06.2025 CIT(A) 51, 07.03.2022 147 2015- Revenue Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.3698 4593 4594 4675 4687 4285 4346 & 4568/MUM/2025 Greenscape Developers Private Limited /2025 250/2025-26 /107688372 4(1) Mumbai 16 4. 4675/Mum /2025 ITBA/APL/S/ 250/2025-26 /107706601 0(1) 16.06.2025 CIT(A) 51, Mumbai 07.03.2022 147 2016- 17 Revenue 5. 4687/Mum /2025 ITBA/APL/S/ 250/2025-26 /107722932 7(1) 19.06.2025 CIT(A) 51, Mumbai 08.03.2022 147 2017- 18 Revenue 6. 4285/Mum /2025 ITBA/APL/S/ 250/2025-26 /107601799 2(1) 05.05.2025 CIT(A) 51, Mumbai 25.03.2023 147 2017- 18 Revenue 7. 4346/Mum /2025 ITBA/APL/S/ 250/2025-26 /107603128 8(1) 05.05.2025 CIT(A) 51, Mumbai 22.04.2021 143(3) 2018- 19 Revenue 8. 4568/Mum /2025 ITBA/APL/S/ 250/2025-26 /107628871 4(1) 19.05.2025 CIT(A) 51, Mumbai 22.03.2022 143(3) 2020- 21 Revenue 2. Grounds taken by the Revenue are reproduced as under: ITA No 3698/Mum/2025 AY 2012-13: “1. On the facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 12,00,00,000/- without appreciating the fact that the addition was made based on the credible information received from investigation wing. 2. On the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee had discharged its burden under section 68 despite overwhelming evidence against the genuineness and creditworthiness of the lender entities. 3. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate the findings of the investigation wing wherein the statement of the principal person of the group, Shri Pravin kumar Jain was recorded in which he categorically admitted that the entire business of accommodation entries in through him and companies under his control and it had been established after due verification that the concerned entities have provided accommodation entries.” Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.3698 4593 4594 4675 4687 4285 4346 & 4568/MUM/2025 Greenscape Developers Private Limited ITA No. 4593/Mum/2025 AY 2014-15: “1. \"Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to delete the addition made u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 12,81,00,000/- without property appreciating the fact of the case and that the addition was made based on the Survey Action carried out u/s 133A in the case of assessee company by the investigation Wing and on the basis of enquires carried in the course of survey proceedings, post survey proceedings and in the course of assessment proceedings\" 2. \"Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee had discharged its burden under section 68 despite overwhelming evidence against the genuineness and creditworthiness of the lender entities\" 3. \"Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AD to delete the addition amounting to Rs. 24,61,059/-without properly appreciating the fact of the case and that the addition was related to the interest paid on non-genuine transaction in the form of unsecured loan\" 4. \"Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the findings recorded by the AO, elaborately discussed in the assessment order, which were based on enquiries carried out in the course of assessment proceedings and back by investigation carried out by the Investigation Wing and on the basis of statements recorded in the course of S&S Action and Survey action of the principal person of the group. Shri Pravin Kumar Jain& Jitendra Kumar Jain and other, wherein, they had catatonically admitted that they have provided accommodation entries.” ITA No. 4594/Mum/2025 AY 2015-16: 1. \"Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to delete the addition made u/s 68 of the I T Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 4,00,50,000/- without properly appreciating the fact of the case and that the addition was made based on the Survey Action carried out u/s 133A in the case of assessee company by the investigation Wing and on the basis of enquires carried in the course of survey proceedings, post survey proceedings and in the course of assessment proceedings.\" 2. \"Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee had discharged its burden under section 68 despite overwhelming evidence against the genuineness and creditworthiness of the lender entities\" 3. \"Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the findings recorded by the AO, elaborately discussed in the assessment order, which were based on enquiries carried out in the course of assessment proceedings and back by investigation carried out Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.3698 4593 4594 4675 4687 4285 4346 & 4568/MUM/2025 Greenscape Developers Private Limited by the Investigation Wing and on the basis of statements recorded in the course of S&S Action and Survey action of the principal pension of the group, Shn Pukhraj Ladulal Pokharana and other, wherein, they had categorically admitted that they have provided accommodation entries.\" ITA No. 4675/Mum/2025 AY 2016-17: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to delete the addition made u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 6,36,50,000/- without properly appreciating the fact of the case and that the addition was made based on the Survey Action carried out u/s 133A in the case of assessee company by the investigation Wing and on the basis of enquires carried in the course of survey proceedings, post survey proceedings and in the course of assessment proceedings? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee had discharged its burden under section 68 despite overwhelming evidence against the genuineness and creditworthiness of the lender entities\" 3. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the findings recorded by the AO, elaborately discussed in the assessment order, which were based on enquiries carried out in the course of assessment proceedings and back by investigation carried out by the Investigation Wing and on the basis of statements recorded in the course of S&S Action and Survey action of the principal person of the group. Shri Pukhraj Ladulal Pokharana and other, wherein, they had categorically admitted that they have provided accommodation entries.\" ITA No. 4687/Mum/2025 AY 2017-18: “1. \"Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to delete the addition made u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 14,22,12,451/- without properly appreciating the fact of the case and that the addition was made based on the Survey Action carried out u/s 133A in the case of assessee company by the investigation Wing and on the basis of enquires carried in the course of survey proceedings, post survey proceedings and in the course of assessment proceedings\" 2. \"Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee had discharged its burden under section 68 despite overwhelming evidence against the genuineness and creditworthiness of the lender entities\" 3. \"Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to delete the addition amounting to Rs 79,03,874/-without properly appreciating the fact of the case and that the addition was related to the interest paid on non-genuine transaction in the form of unsecured loan\" Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.3698 4593 4594 4675 4687 4285 4346 & 4568/MUM/2025 Greenscape Developers Private Limited 4. \"Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the findings recorded by the AO, elaborately discussed in the assessment order, which were based on enquiries carried out in the course of assessment proceedings and back by investigation carried out by the Investigation Wing and on the basis of statements recorded in the course of S&S Action and Survey action of the principal person of the group, Shri. Pravin Kumar Jain& Jitendra Kumar Jain and other, wherein, they had categorically admitted that they have provided accommodation entries.\" ITA No. 4285/Mum/2025 AY 2017-18: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to delete the addition made u/s 68 of the I T Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 5,45,00,000/- without properly appreciating the fact of the case and that the addition was made based on the credible information received from Investigation Wing? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) erred the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee had discharged its burden under section 68 despite overwhelming evidence against the genuineness and creditworthiness of the lender entities.” ITA No. 4346/Mum/2025 AY 2018-19: “1. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to delete the addition made u/s 68 of the I T Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 79,00,000/- without properly appreciating the fact of the case and that the addition was made based on the Survey Action carried out u/s 133A in the case of assessee company by the investigation Wing and on the basis of enquires carried in the course of survey proceedings, post survey proceedings and in the course of assessment proceedings? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) erred the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the assessee had discharged its burden under section 68 despite overwhelming evidence against the genuineness and creditworthiness of the lender entities?” ITA No. 4568/Mum/2025 AY 2020-21: “Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in holding that interest expenses claimed by the assessee on the non-genuine unsecured loan is an allowable expenses, once it is hold that the loans taken by the assessee were genuine and disallowance made by the AO u/s 68 of the IT Act, treating these unsecure loan as unexplained cash credit were deleted by him in the appellate order passed for the A.Y. 2018-19, when the facts are that the Ld. CIT(A) decided this appeal of the assessee in its Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No.3698 4593 4594 4675 4687 4285 4346 & 4568/MUM/2025 Greenscape Developers Private Limited favor on technical issues and without discussing the case on merits of addition made by the AO u/s 68 of the IT Act.” 2.1. These set of eight appeals by the Revenue are in respect of three different assesses forming part of the same group. Issues raised in respect of all the three assesses in these set of eight appeals are identical except for variation in the quantum of addition/disallowance which relates to addition made u/s. 68 on account of unsecured loan and disallowance of interest thereon. Since, the issues raised are identical, all these eight appeals are taken up together for adjudication by passing this consolidated order. The issues raised in respect of each of the assesses and the quantum of addition made in all these eight appeals is tabulated below for ready reference: Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No.3698 4593 4594 4675 4687 4285 4346 & 4568/MUM/2025 Greenscape Developers Private Limited 3. We first take up appeal for Greenscape Developers for AY 2012- 13 in ITA No.3698/Mum/2025 as the lead case. Assessee filed its original return of income on 29.09.2012 reporting total income at Rs.2,34,76,690/-. Assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) vide order dated 23.03.2015 with total income assessed at Rs. 2,47,90,400/-. Subsequently, ld. AO received information from DIT (I&CI) that assessee had purchase a plot of land measuring 2064.750 sq. meter at Nerul for consideration of Rs. 43,85,32,900/- which had been financed out of borrowings. It was informed that out of the total borrowings of Rs. 44,69,85,900/-, an amount of Rs. 12,00,00,000/- was taken from concerns belonging to one Shri Pravin Kumar Jain, who in his search and seizure action had admitted being an entry operator providing accommodation entry in the form of unsecured loans. Based on this information, ld. AO had reasons to believe that assessee had obtained unsecured loan of Rs.12,00,00,000/- from concerns belonging to Shri Pravin Kumar Jain group which is bogus, resulting into escapement of income from assessment. Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 was issued dated 25.03.2019, after recording the said reasons to believe. 3.1. Reassessment proceedings were undertaken and assessee furnished corroborative documentary evidences to explain this genuineness of transaction. Ld. AO primarily relied on the search action undertaken in the case of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and his statement recorded during the course of his search which took place on 01.10.2013. Ld. AO thus, concluded that assessee had obtained accommodation entries in the form of unsecured loans from the group concerns of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain which are bogus concerns. According to him, assessee could not prove the genuineness of Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA No.3698 4593 4594 4675 4687 4285 4346 & 4568/MUM/2025 Greenscape Developers Private Limited transaction. He thus, treated this as bogus unsecured loans and made the addition thereof. Details of addition of Rs. 12 Cr. made by the ld. AO in the reassessment proceedings in respect of unsecured loans taken from entities belonging to the Shri. Pravin Kumar Jain Group is as under: 3.2. In the first appeal before the ld. CIT(A), assessee made elaborate submissions. It was submitted that assessee is engaged in the business of real estate and shown its income from the said business activity. In respect of addition of Rs. 12 Cr. made by the ld. AO, assessee furnished correct factual position for the transactions undertaken by it which is tabulated below: Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA No.3698 4593 4594 4675 4687 4285 4346 & 4568/MUM/2025 Greenscape Developers Private Limited 3.3. It was thus, contended that the actual amount of loan received from the said parties is Rs. 8.50 Cr, fact of which was brought to the notice of ld. AO, in the course of assessment proceedings itself by way of reply dated 07.12.2019. However, ld. AO, proceeded to complete the assessment by solely relying on the information received from DIT (I&CI). In order to discharge its onus casted u/s. 68 to established the identity and credit worthiness of the lenders and prove genuineness of transaction, assessee furnished detailed submissions along with corroborative documentary evidences. For the purpose of establishing the identity of lenders assessee filed copy of ITR acknowledgement. It also furnished details of registration of these lender companies under the Companies Act. The details so furnished are tabulated below: Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITA No.3698 4593 4594 4675 4687 4285 4346 & 4568/MUM/2025 Greenscape Developers Private Limited 3.4. For the purpose of establishing creditworthiness of the lender companies, assessee furnished their audited financials and summarized their financial position as tabulated below. It demonstrated that all these lender companies had sufficient balance in their accounts so as to enable them to lend the money to the assessee. Assessee also furnished copies of bank statements of these lender companies which also evidently proved the creditworthiness of these lender companies. The details in this respect are tabulated below: 3.5. For the purpose of demonstrating the genuineness of transaction, it was submitted that all these loan transactions including payment of interest and repayment thereof were effected through proper banking channel which is evidently verifiable from the Printed from counselvise.com 11 ITA No.3698 4593 4594 4675 4687 4285 4346 & 4568/MUM/2025 Greenscape Developers Private Limited copies of bank statements placed on record. Due TDS was done on interest payments to each of these lender parties. 3.6. Assessee also contended that ld. AO did not undertake any independent enquiry u/s. 133(6) despite having all the material on record. He chose merely to rely on the information received from DIT (I&CI) arising from the search action carried out in the case of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain, who is an unrelated party to the assessee. Assessee also, demonstrated from the documentary evidences that loans were repaid in the subsequent period, including discharge of interest liability thereon. 4. Ld. CIT(A) after carefully considering all the submissions made by the assessee, took note of the discrepancy in the addition made by the ld. AO which was factually demonstrated by the assessee that the loans taken by the assessee during the year is of Rs. 8.50 Cr. and not Rs. 12 Cr. He thus, deleted the addition of Rs.3.5 Cr. out of the Rs.12 Cr. on account of factual incorrectness. Ld. CIT(A) also took note of the orders of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT in several cases were the lender companies have been held to be genuine. Details in this respect is as below: (i) GM/s Duke Business Pvt. Ltd. - ITA No: 1477/Mum/2017 dated 20.11.2018 in the case of Shree Ganesh Developers OME TAX DEPARTMENY (ii) M/s Josh Trading Pvt. Ltd. - ITA No: 2567/Mum/2022 dated 09.01.2023 in the case of Hemang Goradia (iii) M/s Atharv Business Pvt. Ltd. -- ITA No: 2567/Mum/2022 dated 09.01.2023 in the case of Hemang Goradia (iv) M/s Sumukh Commercial Pvt. Ltd. - ITA No: 1477/Mum/2017 dated 20.11.2018 in the case of Shree Ganesh Developers. Printed from counselvise.com 12 ITA No.3698 4593 4594 4675 4687 4285 4346 & 4568/MUM/2025 Greenscape Developers Private Limited 4.1. From the aforesaid listed orders of various Co-ordinate Benches, ld. CIT(A) observed that in these decisions, detailed analysis has been done in respect of additions made on the basis of statement of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain, to arrive at a conclusion that these stated companies are not shell companies as they satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 68. Further, on the requirement of discharging primary onus casted u/s. 68, it was noted by ld. CIT(A) that assessee has furnished the following documents: i) Acknowledgment of Income Tax Return filed ii) Loan confirmation iii) Audited Financial Statement iv) Bank Statement of the lenders 4.2. Thus, assessee had discharged its primary onus of establishing the identity and creditworthiness of lender parties and the genuineness of loan transaction. From the perusal of the bank statement of lender parties, ld. CIT(A) noted that these accounts did not show cash deposits prior to the issuance of cheques/RTGS transfer of unsecured loans to the assessee. He also observed that even though the transactions are with tainted group, the entities in question have already been subject matter of adjudication before the Co-ordinate Benches of ITAT, wherein it has been held that the loans given by these entities are genuine. On the contention of the assessee that no opportunity of cross examination was provided to it while placing reliance on the statement of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain recorded during the course of his search, it was observed that principles of natural justice need to be applied by the Income Tax Authorities during the assessment proceedings. Accordingly, material relied upon by the ld. AO to make addition must be brought to the notice of the Printed from counselvise.com 13 ITA No.3698 4593 4594 4675 4687 4285 4346 & 4568/MUM/2025 Greenscape Developers Private Limited assessee. However, in the present case no such material or opportunity was made available to the assessee while taking an adverse view. Further, it is noted that no defects have been found in the books of accounts nor any discrepancies or short coming pointed in the detailed submission and corroborative evidence placed on record. Having considered all these aspects, ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of the remaining Rs.8.5 Cr. and allowed the appeal by the assessee. 5. Revenue is in appeal before us, contesting on the relief granted by the ld. CIT(A). Keeping in perspective the detailed discussion made in the above paragraphs, we note that ld. AO without even going through and discussing the details submitted by the lender companies, took an adverse view which he could have taken, only if he could point out discrepancy and insufficiency in the evidences and details furnished before him. He chose not to take any action by issuing summons/ notices u/s.133(6) on the lender parties, but solely relied on information received from DIT (I&CI) which was based on search conducted in the case of Shri. Pravin Kumar Jain Group, who is an unrelated party to the assessee. Ld. Ld.AO has not bothered to discuss or point out any defect or deficiency in the documents furnished by the assessee in respect of lender companies. These evidences furnished have been neither controverted by the ld. AO during the assessment proceedings, nor anything substantive brought on record to justify the addition made by him. Going by the records placed by the assessee in respect of lender companies, it can be safely held that assessee had discharged its initial burden which then shifted on to the ld. AO to enquire further into the matter which he failed to do so. Printed from counselvise.com 14 ITA No.3698 4593 4594 4675 4687 4285 4346 & 4568/MUM/2025 Greenscape Developers Private Limited 5.1. It is noted that all the lender companies are Income-Tax assessees, filing their Income-Tax return, unsecured loan has been given through proper banking channel for which copies of bank statement of the lender companies are placed on record, for none of the transactions there are any deposit of cash before extending loan to the assessee and all the lender companies have substantial creditworthiness for the purpose of advancing loan to the assessee. 5.2. Considering the facts and the circumstances of the case and the material placed on record, we find that assessee has discharged its onus to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the lender companies and the genuineness of transaction. In respect of unsecured loans obtained by it, we do not find any reason to interfere with the elaborate fact-based findings arrived at by ld. CIT(A) for deleting the addition made by the ld.AO. We have also perused various judicial precedents relied up on by ld. CIT(A) in his first appellate order while granting the said relief which holds the fort in favor of the assessee. Accordingly, grounds raised by the Revenue in this respect are dismissed. 6. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. ITA No. 4593/Mum/2014-15 7. In the appeal for A.Y. 2014-15, apart from the addition towards unsecured loan, there is a disallowance of interest of Rs. 24,61,059/- on these unsecured loans. Assessee had made similar factual correction in respect of addition made towards unsecured loan u/s. 68 details of which is tabulated below: Printed from counselvise.com 15 ITA No.3698 4593 4594 4675 4687 4285 4346 & 4568/MUM/2025 Greenscape Developers Private Limited 7.1. For these lender companies also, assessee established their identity and creditworthiness and proved genuineness of the transaction. Relevant details in this respect are tabulated below for the purpose of identity. Printed from counselvise.com 16 ITA No.3698 4593 4594 4675 4687 4285 4346 & 4568/MUM/2025 Greenscape Developers Private Limited 7.2. For the purpose of creditworthiness, the financial position of these lender parties is tabulated below: Name of the investor Amount invested in appellant company Share capital and reserve & surplus with investor parties along with borrowings as on 31.03.2014 M/s. Manhar Impex Pvt Ltd. Rs. 70,00,000/ 200.06 Crs. M/s. Ganga Gems Pvt Ltd. Rs.2,60,00,000/- 58.19 Crs M/s. Rajdhani Diamonds Pvt Ltd Rs.3,65,00,000/- 52.20 Crs. M/s. Pokhrana Impex Pvt Ltd Rs. 1,75,00,000/- 49.63 Crs. M/s. Kapil Gems Pvt Ltd. Rs.4,01,00,000/- 38.27 Crs. 7.3. It is observed that these lender companies have also been alleged by the ld. AO to be entities controlled and managed by Shri Pravin Kumar Jain. However, ld. CIT(A) took note of the fact about number of decisions by Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT wherein these lender parties have been held to be genuine. These decisions are listed below: (i) ITA No: 1477/Mum/2017 dated 20.11.2018 in the case of Shree Ganesh Developers (ii) ITA No: 5589/Mum/2017 ACIT 30(3) Vs. M/s Shreedham Construction Pvt. Ltd. (iii) ITA No:3596 & 3597/Mum/2019 dated 27.04.2022 in the case of DCIT Vs M/s Rupa Properties and Securities Pvt Ltd (iv) ITA No: 3647/Mum/2017 in the case of ITO 4(2)(4) Vs Khushboo Exports Pvt Ltd (v) ITA No: 437/Hyd/2016 in the case of Komal Agrotech Pvt Ltd Vs ITO (vi) ITA No: 369/Mum/2017 dated 13.04.2017 in the case of Anil Chhaganlal Jain (vii) ITA No: 37541/Mum/2017 dated 14.11.2017 in the case of M/s Shreedham Construction Pvt Ltd. Printed from counselvise.com 17 ITA No.3698 4593 4594 4675 4687 4285 4346 & 4568/MUM/2025 Greenscape Developers Private Limited 7.4. Thus, on similar facts, findings and observations, ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made in respect of unsecured loan u/s. 68. The addition made on account of interest expense on these loans was also deleted as the said unsecured loans were held to be genuine. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings and observations of ld. CIT(A), in this respect, in terms of our findings and observations already given in appeal for AY 2012-13. Thus, grounds raised by the Revenue both, in respect of deletion of addition made on account of unsecured loans and disallowance of interest expense thereon are dismissed. ITA No. 4594/Mum/2025 AY 2015-16 8. In respect of appeal for A.Y. 2015-16, we captured the factual details in respect of lender parties and the addition made thereon. On account of unsecured loan, identical fact pattern exists in respect of addition made in this year. Accordingly, the observations and findings given above by us, including that of by ld. CIT(A) apply mutatis mutandis and, therefore, the grounds raised by the Revenue in this respect are dismissed. The factual details are produced as under: 8.1. Details of loan taken by the assessee: Printed from counselvise.com 18 ITA No.3698 4593 4594 4675 4687 4285 4346 & 4568/MUM/2025 Greenscape Developers Private Limited 8.2. For these lender companies also, assessee established their identity and creditworthiness and proved genuineness of the transaction. Relevant details in this respect are tabulated below for the purpose of identity. Printed from counselvise.com 19 ITA No.3698 4593 4594 4675 4687 4285 4346 & 4568/MUM/2025 Greenscape Developers Private Limited 8.3. For the purpose of creditworthiness, the financial position of these lender parties is tabulated below: ITA NO. 4675/Mum/2016-17 9. In respect of A.Y. 2016-17, we captured the factual details in respect of lender parties and the addition made thereon. On account of unsecured loan, identical fact pattern exists in respect of addition made in this year. Accordingly, the observations and findings given above by us, including that by ld. CIT(A) apply mutatis mutandis and, therefore, the grounds raised by the Revenue in this respect are dismissed. Factual details are produced as under: 9.1. Details of loan taken by the assessee: Sr. No. Name of the party Amount as per AO (in Rs.) Amount as per Books (in Rs.) Difference 1 M/s. Ganga Gems Rs. Rs. Printed from counselvise.com 20 ITA No.3698 4593 4594 4675 4687 4285 4346 & 4568/MUM/2025 Greenscape Developers Private Limited Pvt Ltd 1,50,00,000/- 1,50,00,000/- 2 M/s. Secure Exim Pvt Ltd Rs.20,00,000/- Rs.20,00,000/- - 3 M/s. Pamecha Exim Pvt Ltd. Rs.40,00,000/- Rs.40,00,000/- 4 M/s. Aera Exports Pvt Ltd Rs.2,00,00,000/- Rs.2,00,00,000/- 5 M/s. Rajdhani Diamonds Pvt Ltd. Rs.30,00,000/- Rs.30,00,000/- 6 M/s. Pokharna Impex Pvt Ltd. Rs.31,00,000/- Rs.31,00,000/- 7 M/s. Gurukul Exim Pvt Ltd Rs.94,00,000/- Rs.74,00,000/- Rs.20,00,000/- 8 M/s. Dolex Commercial Pvt Ltd. Rs.71,50,000/- 0 Rs.71,50,000/ Total Rs.6,36,50,000/- Rs.5,45,00,000 Rs.91,50,000/ 9.2. For these lender companies also, assessee established their identity and creditworthiness and proved genuineness of the transaction. Relevant details in this respect are tabulated below for the purpose of identity. Sr. No. Name of Parties PAN CIN 1 M/s. Ganga Gems Pvt Ltd AADCG6620Q U36912GJ2010PTC0593 2 M/s. Secure Exim Pvt Ltd. AAUCS0399F U51909GJ2013PTC0780 3 M/s. Pamecha Exim Pvt Ltd. AAECP6913E U52393GJ2008PTC0539 4 M/s. Aera Exports Pvt Ltd. AANCA4296Q U51103GJ2015PTC083085 5 M/s. Rajdhani Diamonds Pvt Ltd. AAECR6968B U36911GJ2010PTC059975 6 M/s. Pokharna Impex Pvt Ltd AABCP7359P U51900MH1998PTC115082 7 M/s. Gurukul Exim Pvt Ltd AAFCG4510K U36912GJ2013PTC077934 8 M/s. Dolex Commercial Pvt Ltd AAACD5527G U67120MH2003PTC085669 9.3. For the purpose of creditworthiness, the financial position of these lender parties is tabulated below: Printed from counselvise.com 21 ITA No.3698 4593 4594 4675 4687 4285 4346 & 4568/MUM/2025 Greenscape Developers Private Limited Name of the investor Amount invested in appellant company Share capital and reserve & surplus with investor parties along with borrowings as on 31.03.2016 M/s. Ganga Gems Pvt Ltd. 1,50,00,000 81.13 Crs. M/s. Secure Exim Pvt Ltd. 20,00,000 61.99 Crs. M/s. Pamecha Exim Pvt Ltd, 40,00,000 19.51 Crs. M/s. Aera Exports Pvt Ltd 2,00,00,000 56.81 Crs. M/s. Rajdhani Diamonds Pvt Ltd. 30,00,000 75.54 Crs. M/s. Pokhama Impex Pvt Ltd. 31,00,000 81.91 Crs. M/s. Gurukul Exim Pvt Ltd 94,00,000 116.79 Crs M/s. Dolex Commercial Pvt Ltd. 71,50,000 64.22 Crs. ITA No. 4687/Mum/2025 AY 2017-18 10. In respect of A.Y. 2017-18, we captured the factual details in respect of lender parties and the addition made thereon. On account of unsecured loan, identical fact pattern exists in respect of addition made in this year. Accordingly, the observations and findings given above by us, including that by Ld. CIT(A) apply mutatis mutandis and, therefore, the grounds raised by the Revenue in this respect are dismissed. The factual details are produce as under. 10.1. Details of loans taken by the assessee are: Printed from counselvise.com 22 ITA No.3698 4593 4594 4675 4687 4285 4346 & 4568/MUM/2025 Greenscape Developers Private Limited 10.2. For these lender companies also, assessee established their identity and creditworthiness and proved genuineness of the transaction. Relevant details in this respect are tabulated below for the purpose of identity. Printed from counselvise.com 23 ITA No.3698 4593 4594 4675 4687 4285 4346 & 4568/MUM/2025 Greenscape Developers Private Limited 10.3. For the purpose of creditworthiness, the financial position of these lender parties is tabulated below: Name of the investor Amount invested in appellant company Share capital and reserve & surplus with investor parties along with borrowings as on 31.03.2017 M/s. Manan Trading Co. Pvt Ltd Rs.3,17,75,000/ 32.54 Crs. M/s. Manhar Impex Pvt Ltd. Rs. 8,10,000/- 100.13 Crs M/s. Secure Exim Pvt Ltd Rs. 30,00,000/- 61.64 Crs. M/s Aera Exports Pvt Ltd Rs. 1,00,00,000/- 62.80 Crs. Printed from counselvise.com 24 ITA No.3698 4593 4594 4675 4687 4285 4346 & 4568/MUM/2025 Greenscape Developers Private Limited M/s Adroit Exports Pvt Ltd Rs.3,41,00,000/- 13.034 Crs. M/s Myron Trade Pvt Ltd Rs. 1,80,00,000/ 7.70 Crs M/s Galary Trading Pvt Ltd. Rs. 1,70,00,000/- 14.44 Crs. M/s Rightangle Diamond Pvt Ltd Rs. 50,00,000/- 193.86 Crs. M/s Gurukul Exim Pvt Ltd Rs. 20,00,000/- 162.55 Crs. M/s. Anshul Gems Pvt Ltd. Rs. 7,46,420/- 26.59 Crs M/s Dolex Commercial Pvt Ltd Rs. 71,50,000/- 16.41 Crs. M/s Kapil Gems Pvt Ltd Rs. 27,31,031/- 31.64 Crs M/s Shyam Alcohol & Chemicals Ltd Rs. 99,00,000/- 18.204 Crs. 10.4. It is observed that these lender companies have also been alleged by the ld. AO to be entities controlled and managed by Shri Pravin Kumar Jain. However, ld. CIT(A) took note of the fact about number of decisions by Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT wherein these lender parties have been held to be genuine. These decisions are listed below: (i) ITAT, Mumbai in the case of DCIT Vs. M/s Rupa Properties and Securities Pvt Ltd in ITA No: 3596 & 3597/Mum/2019 dated 27.04.2022 (ii) ITAT, Mumbai in the case of ITO 4(2)(4) Vs Khushboo Exports Pvt Ltd in ITA No: 3647/M/2017 (iii) ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Komal Agrotech Pvt Ltd Vs ITO in ITA No: 437/Hyd/2016 (iv) ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Anil Chhaganlal Jain in ITA No: 369/Mum/2017 (v) ITAT, Mumbai in the case of M/s Shreedham Construction Pvt Ltd in ITA No: 3754/Mum/2017 dated 14.11.2017 ITA No. 4285/Mum/2025 AY 2017-18 11. We now take up appeal in the case of Greenscape Reality LLP for AY 2017-18 in ITA No. 4285/Mum/2025, wherein similar addition has been made on account of unsecured loan of Rs.5.45 Cr. from one Printed from counselvise.com 25 ITA No.3698 4593 4594 4675 4687 4285 4346 & 4568/MUM/2025 Greenscape Developers Private Limited party Adroit Exports Private Limited. Basis of addition made by the ld. AO is identical to the one already discussed in above paragraphs, in the case of Greenscape Developers Private Limited. Details furnished by the assessee in respect of the lender company is tabulated below: Name of the investor Amount invested in appellant company Share capital and reserve & surplus with investor parties along with borrowings as on 31.03.2017 M/s Adroit Exports Pvt Ltd Rs.5,45,00,000/- 18.18.crs 11.1. For this lender company also, assessee established its identity and creditworthiness and proved genuineness of the transaction. Relevant details in this respect are tabulated below for the purpose of identity. 11.2. Identical fact pattern exists in respect of the addition made. Accordingly, observations and findings given by us, including that by ld. CIT(A) applies mutatis mutandis. Thus, grounds raised by the Revenue in this respect are dismissed. ITA No. 4346/Mum/2025 Ay 2018-19 12. In respect of appeal for A.Y. 2018-19, details of the lender companies are tabulated below: Printed from counselvise.com 26 ITA No.3698 4593 4594 4675 4687 4285 4346 & 4568/MUM/2025 Greenscape Developers Private Limited 12.1. For these lender companies also, assessee established their identity and creditworthiness and proved genuineness of the transaction. Relevant details in this respect are tabulated below for the purpose of identity. Printed from counselvise.com 27 ITA No.3698 4593 4594 4675 4687 4285 4346 & 4568/MUM/2025 Greenscape Developers Private Limited 12.2 For the purpose of creditworthiness, the financial position of these lender parties is tabulated below: 12.3. Identical fact pattern exists in respect of the addition made. Accordingly, observations and findings given by us, including that by ld. CIT(A) applies mutatis mutandis. Thus, grounds raised by the Revenue in this respect are dismissed. ITA No. 4568/Mum/2025 AY 2020-21 13. For the appeal in the case of Greenscape Kalpana Struct Con. for AY 2020-21 in ITA No.4568/Mum/2025, it is only on account of disallowance of interest of unsecured loans. Details of interest are that Rs.11,72,760/- was in respect of unsecured loan from Adroit Exports Private Limited and Rs.4,33,300/- is in respect of loan from Suparshwash Diamond Private Limited, for loans taken in AY 2018- 19. It is brought on record and noted by the ld. CIT(A) that additions made on account of unsecured loans from both these lender parties which were treated as accommodation entries were deleted. Ld. CIT(A) Printed from counselvise.com 28 ITA No.3698 4593 4594 4675 4687 4285 4346 & 4568/MUM/2025 Greenscape Developers Private Limited thus, noted that once the addition on account of loans has been deleted and that the quantum of interest payment in the year under consideration is not in dispute, he allowed the interest expense. In the given set of facts, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings arrived at by ld. CIT(A), as nothing contrary has been brought on record to demonstrate anything otherwise. Accordingly, grounds raised by the Revenue in this respect are dismissed. 14. In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the Revenue in respect of the three assessees are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 26.11.2025. Sd/- Sd/- [Sandeep Gosain] [Girish Agrawal] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 26.11.2025. Divya Ramesh Nandgaonkar Stenographer Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4. 5. Guard File CIT BY ORDER, (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "