ITAT Mumbai Judgments — March 2025

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs ITO CENTERAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

ITA 436/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of additions made on account of notional income from house property is not justified. The Tribunal distinguished the case of PSB Industries India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the Revenue, noting that in the present case, the assessee had not received any rental income, and the properties were shown in the balance sheet. The Tribunal found that it was not the department's case that the assessee had not shown the properties or received undeclared rental income. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decisions of co-ordinate benches, including Shri Suresh Shivlal Bhasin (supra), which held that penalty for concealment of income cannot be levied on notional income from house property. Consequently, the penalties for AYs 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14 were quashed. Regarding AY 2016-17, the Tribunal held that penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is bad in law and void ab initio. This was because the search was conducted on 04.02.2016, and Section 271AAB, which has a non-obstante clause excluding the applicability of Section 271(1)(c) for undisclosed income pertaining to a specified previous year, should have been applied. The Tribunal noted that the specified previous year, as defined in Section 271AAB, included the year in which the search was conducted. Therefore, the penalty for AY 2016-17 was also quashed.

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs ITO CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

ITA 438/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of notional income from house property is bad in law and quashed it for AYs 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14. The Tribunal distinguished the case of PSB Industries India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the revenue, noting that in the present case, the assessee had not received any rental income, and the addition was purely notional. The Tribunal respectfully followed the decisions of co-ordinate benches, including Shri Suresh Shivlal Bhasin (supra), which held that penalty for concealment cannot be levied on notional income. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was bad in law and void ab initio, deserving to be quashed. This was because Section 271AAB, with its non-obstante clause, was applicable to searches initiated on or after July 1, 2012, and the search in this case occurred on 04.02.2016. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that there was no undisclosed income declared by the assessee as contemplated under Section 271AAB. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided. The operative direction was to quash the penalties.

EDENRED PTE LTD ,MUMBAI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -2(2)1, MUMBAI

ITA 4334/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that all the disputed receipts, including Infrastructure Data Centre charges, Trade & Consumer CRM System Development charges, Other Service Charges (Referral Fees), Management Service Fees, and Member Login Fees, are not in the nature of royalty. The Tribunal noted that these are recurring issues that have been consistently decided in favour of the assessee by its co-ordinate benches in previous assessment years. Citing its own decisions for AY 2019-20, AY 2016-17, and earlier years, the Tribunal found no new material or change in facts and law presented by the revenue to deviate from these precedents. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the additions made on account of these charges. The general ground of appeal was not adjudicated separately. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal.

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs ITO CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

ITA 435/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of notional income from house property is bad in law and quashed it for AYs 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14. The Tribunal distinguished the case of PSB Industries India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) by noting that in the present case, the assessee had not received any rental income, and the properties were shown in the balance sheet, unlike the former case where a significantly higher Annual Letting Value was determined based on lease agreements and interest-free deposits. The Tribunal followed the decisions of co-ordinate benches, including Shri Suresh Shivlal Bhasin (supra), which held that penalty cannot be levied on notional income. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was bad in law and void ab initio because Section 271AAB was applicable due to the search date (04.02.2016) and the non-obstante clause in Section 271AAB excludes the applicability of Section 271(1)(c) for undisclosed income pertaining to the specified previous year. The Tribunal quashed the penalty for AY 2016-17. The appeals were partly allowed.

CONNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED,MUMBAI vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3753/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 270A is not automatic and is discretionary. It found that the assessee had disclosed all material facts and the explanation offered was bonafide, thus falling under the exception provided in Section 270A(6)(a). Therefore, the penalty was deleted for AY 2017-18 to 2019-20.

MOHAN THAKURDAS GURNANI,NAVI MUMBAI vs ITO CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(2), MUMBAI

ITA 437/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of notional income is bad in law and therefore quashed. The Tribunal distinguished the case of PSB Industries India Pvt. Ltd. relied upon by the revenue, noting that in the present case, the assessee had not received any rental income and the properties were shown in the balance sheet, unlike the facts in PSB Industries where rental income was suppressed. The Tribunal followed decisions of co-ordinate benches, including Shri Suresh Shivlal Bhasin (supra), which held that penalty for concealment of income cannot be levied on notional income from house property. Consequently, the penalties for AYs 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2013-14 were quashed. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was bad in law and void ab initio and deserved to be quashed because Section 271AAB was applicable due to the search date (04.02.2016) and the definition of 'specified previous year' under Section 271AAB. The Tribunal found that Section 271AAB starts with a non-obstante clause excluding the applicability of Section 271(1)(c) for undisclosed income pertaining to the specified previous year. The issue regarding violation of Section 275 and natural justice was not explicitly decided as the primary ground of notional income and wrong section vitiated the penalty.

SAMA JEWELLERY PRIVATE LTD,MUMBAI vs DCIT, CIRCLE 8(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3920/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not granted adequate opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A), and the CIT(A) merely reiterated the AO's findings without independent analysis. Therefore, the matter was set aside.

SNEHALAYA CHARITABLE TRUST ,MUMBAI vs ITO EXEMPTION WARD THANE , THANE

ITA 400/MUM/2025[2025-26]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2025-26Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had inadvertently submitted incorrect certificates and that a relevant provision cited for rejection was omitted from the statute. The Tribunal decided to set aside the order to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh examination.

KANTA RATHI BENEFICIARY TRUST,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

ITA 4342/MUM/2024[2023-24]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2023-24Dismissed

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, with liberty to recall the order if circumstances warrant. The grounds raised were dismissed as withdrawn.

ACIT 32 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs ASHA P KEDIA, MUMBAI

ITA 3672/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148 and the subsequent assessment order were void ab initio as the approval was not granted by the competent authority as per Section 151 of the Income Tax Act. The provisos to Section 151, relied upon by the Revenue, were inserted w.e.f. 01.04.2023 and were not applicable to the period in question.

DCIT-CC-4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs KRISHAN RAGHUNATH PRASAD KHADARIA, MUMBAI

ITA 3569/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a sufficient and effective opportunity to cross-examine the parties whose statements were relied upon by the AO. Consequently, the matters were remanded back to the AO for de novo assessment.

DCIT-CC-4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs KRISHAN RAGHUNATH PRASAD KHADARIA, MUMBAI

ITA 3571/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a sufficient and effective opportunity to cross-examine the parties whose statements were relied upon by the AO. Consequently, the matters were remanded back to the AO for de novo assessment.

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3752/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 270A is not automatic and is discretionary. It found that the assessee had disclosed all material facts and the explanation offered was bonafide, thus falling under the exception provided in Section 270A(6)(a). Therefore, the penalty was deleted for AY 2017-18 to 2019-20.

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-2(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3751/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 270A is not automatic and is discretionary. It found that the assessee had disclosed all material facts and the explanation offered was bonafide, thus falling under the exception provided in Section 270A(6)(a). Therefore, the penalty was deleted for AY 2017-18 to 2019-20.

ACIT, MUMBAI vs PRAFUL MANILAL SHAH, MUMBAI

ITA 3572/MUM/2024[2020]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not granted a proper opportunity of being heard and that the CIT(A)'s decision appeared to be made without proper inquiry. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) to pass a detailed order on merits.

DCIT-CC-5(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs INDIAFIRST LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 3827/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed grounds 1 to 5 of the Revenue's appeal as they did not arise from the lower authorities' orders. Regarding ground 6, concerning the disallowance under Section 14A, the Tribunal followed previous decisions of the co-ordinate bench and its own orders, holding that Section 14A is not applicable to insurance companies.

DIPIKA DHARMENDRA ROLIYA,MUMBAI vs DESIGNATED INCOME TAX OFFICER, FACELESS ASSESSMENT, FACELESS ASSESSMENT

ITA 3278/MUM/2024[2016-2017]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2016-2017Withdrawn

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the sufficient cause presented. Subsequently, based on the assessee's submission about the Vivad se Viswas Scheme, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

SILVER STREAM EQUITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) , MUMBAI

ITA 3980/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the trades were genuine and encouraged by BSE incentive schemes. The disallowance was based on suspicion without adverse evidence, and the revenue failed to prove the trades were fictitious or that the assessee benefited from corresponding transactions.

SADGURU SHREE DADA RANADE CHARITABLE TRUSE ,MUMBAI vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), KALYAN

ITA 314/MUM/2025[2025-26]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2025-26Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided necessary documentation, but it appeared not to have been considered by the CIT(Exemption). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the matter for fresh consideration by the CIT(Exemption) with an opportunity to the assessee.

NIHAL CHANDRAKANT GARWARE,MUMBAI vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(4), MUMBAI

ITA 3726/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2021-22Partly Allowed

The Tribunal deleted the addition on account of jewellery as it was considered nominal and justifiable for a high net worth individual from a wealthy family. However, the issue regarding the addition for watches was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh valuation and consideration, as the assessee contended the valuation was incorrect and the watches were not real.

MAHAVIR CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs ITO, WARD, 19(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3409/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 was invalid as it was beyond the period of limitation prescribed by the new law. Consequently, the assessment order passed under section 147 was quashed.

SATIDHAM SYNTEX LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 3370/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the ground of appeal concerning the levy of interest under Section 234B. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on this specific issue.

KRISHAN KHADARIA,MUMBAI vs DY. CIT (CC) 4 (3),, MUMBAI

ITA 3197/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a sufficient and effective opportunity to cross-examine the parties whose statements were relied upon by the AO. Consequently, the matters were remanded back to the AO for de novo assessment.

MAHAZARIN FEROZE DASTOOR ,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER , MUMBAI

ITA 3494/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2014-15Withdrawn

The assessee has filed an application under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme, 2024 (VSVS, 2024). As the assessee opted to settle the dispute under VSVS, 2024, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

POWER LOOM DEVELOPMENT AND EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEM) WARD 2(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1060/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal held that the issue of whether the assessee's activities fall under the nature of trade, commerce, or business needs to be examined in light of Supreme Court judgments. It also noted that the principle of mutuality might not apply to revenues from non-members.

KRISHAN KHADARIA,MUMBAI vs DY. CIT (CC) 4 (3), MUMBAI

ITA 3196/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2010-11Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a sufficient and effective opportunity to cross-examine the parties whose statements were relied upon by the AO. Consequently, the matters were remanded back to the AO for de novo assessment.

KRISHAN KHADARIA,MUMBAI vs DY. CIT (CC) 4 (3), MUMBAI

ITA 3200/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a sufficient and effective opportunity to cross-examine the parties whose statements were relied upon by the AO. Consequently, the matters were remanded back to the AO for de novo assessment.

DCIT-CC-4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs KRISHAN RAGHUNATH PRASAD KHADARIA, MUMBAI

ITA 3570/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a sufficient and effective opportunity to cross-examine the parties whose statements were relied upon by the AO. Consequently, the matters were remanded back to the AO for de novo assessment.

KRISHAN KHADARIA,MUMBAI vs DY. CIT (CC) 4 (3), MUMBAI

ITA 3199/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a sufficient and effective opportunity to cross-examine the parties whose statements were relied upon by the AO. Consequently, the matters were remanded back to the AO for de novo assessment.

KRISHAN KHADARIA,MUMBAI vs DY. CIT (CC) 4 (3), MUMBAI

ITA 3198/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a sufficient and effective opportunity to cross-examine the parties whose statements were relied upon by the AO. Consequently, the matters were remanded back to the AO for de novo assessment.

DCIT-CC-4(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs KRISHAN RAGHUNATH PRASAD KHADARIA, MUMBAI

ITA 3572/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2011-12Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a sufficient and effective opportunity to cross-examine the parties whose statements were relied upon by the AO. Consequently, the matters were remanded back to the AO for de novo assessment.

IIGJ RESERCH AND LOBORATORES CENTRE,MUMBAI vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , (EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

ITA 183/MUM/2025[N.A]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not get an opportunity to respond to the last notice issued by the CIT(E) on the issues raised therein. In the interest of justice, the issue deserved to be remanded to the CIT(E) to consider the claim in light of the submissions made by both sides and in accordance with the law. The Tribunal emphasized that a proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to the assessee. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the assessee's application for registration but rather on the procedural aspect of providing an opportunity to be heard. The ratio decidendi is that where an assessee fails to respond to a notice due to inadvertence, and the opportunity to be heard is crucial for natural justice, the matter should be remanded to the lower authority to provide such an opportunity, especially when the application is at the stage of grant of registration.

ITO-10(3)(1), MUMBAI vs NAVKIRAN DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 2908/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2010-11Dismissed

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient evidence. The AO failed to bring any material on record to rebut the documents furnished by the assessee.

CORNERSTONE ONDEMAND LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION )-291)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3747/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty under Section 270A is not automatic and is discretionary. It found that the assessee had disclosed all material facts and the explanation offered was bonafide, thus falling under the exception provided in Section 270A(6)(a). Therefore, the penalty was deleted for AY 2017-18 to 2019-20.

SAROVAR HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 3, MUMBAI

ITA 1114/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17Allowed

The tribunal noted that the order giving effect to the PCIT's order was acceptable to the assessee. Consequently, the assessee did not wish to proceed with the appeal, and the grounds raised were dismissed as withdrawn.

REKHA RAJESH JOGANI,MUMBAI vs ITO 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2916/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for the share transactions, including purchase invoices, bank statements, demat account details, and contract notes. Relying on jurisdictional High Court decisions, the Tribunal found that the transactions conducted through the stock exchange with payments via banking channels could not be treated as unexplained cash credits.

PVAI VALUATION PROFESSIONAL ORGANISATION,MUMBAI vs ITO (EXEMPTION) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 1118/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2024-25Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that the assessee had presented a reasonable cause. The Tribunal also remitted the issue back to the CIT(E) to provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard and rectify defects.

KRISHAN KHADARIA,MUMBAI vs DY. CIT (CC) 4 (3), MUMBAI

ITA 3195/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2009-10Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a sufficient and effective opportunity to cross-examine the parties whose statements were relied upon by the AO. Consequently, the matters were remanded back to the AO for de novo assessment.

RAJESH NANALAL SHAH HUF,MUMBAI vs ITO WARD 33(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 270/MUM/2025[2013-04]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2013-04Allowed

The Tribunal held that the initial manual appeal was timely, and the subsequent e-filing was done without delay following the CIT(A)'s instruction. Therefore, the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal on procedural grounds of delay without considering its merits. The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order and directing the CIT(A) to decide the matter on its merits.

VODAFONE INDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs DCIT CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

ITA 2242/AHD/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2010-11Withdrawn

The Tribunal noted the submissions and letters filed by both the assessee and the revenue for withdrawal of their respective appeals. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

PVAI VALUATION PROFESSIONAL ORGANISATION,MUMBAI vs ITO (EXEMPTION) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 1120/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2024-25Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that the assessee had presented a reasonable cause. The Tribunal also remitted the issue back to the CIT(E) to provide the assessee an opportunity to be heard and rectify defects.

YOGITA YASHWANT BAING,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(4), THANE

ITA 341/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that while the assessee may have failed to respond, the penalty for the same default cannot be levied twice. Citing precedent, the penalty was restricted to Rs. 10,000/- for the first default.

FINCANTIERI SPA,NOIDA vs ACIT IT CIRCLE 2(3) (1), MUMBAI

ITA 3313/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the attribution of income between the head office and the PE constitutes an international transaction subject to transfer pricing regulations. The AO's ad-hoc attribution without proper analysis was rejected, and the addition made by the AO was deleted.

DCIT CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs M/S. VODAFONE INDIA SERVICES PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2254/AHD/2018[2010-11]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2010-11Withdrawn

The Tribunal noted the submissions and letters filed by both the assessee and the revenue for withdrawal of their respective appeals. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

ITO-4-2-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs SIDDHARTH SURYAKANT DESHMUKH, MUMBAI

ITA 1205/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence regarding fixed deposits and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh examination. Similarly, the issues of cash deposits and investment in a flat were also remanded to the AO for a holistic review.

M/S. ROTARY CLUB OF WORLI BOMBAY TRUST ,MUMBAI vs ITO, EXEMPTION WARD 2(2), MUMBAI

ITA 257/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order did not provide details of hearing or notices and that the email address for notices was incorrect. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the AO for fresh adjudication after granting an opportunity of being heard.

SIDDHARTH SURYAKANT DESHMUKH,MUMBAI vs ITO-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3019/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal decided to remand all three major additions back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Regarding the addition of Rs. 1,02,58,276/- for unexplained fixed deposits, the Tribunal admitted additional evidence in the form of bank certificates showing the placement of fixed deposits in earlier years (as far back as 2011) and their reinvestment, with maturity proceeds credited during the relevant assessment year. These certificates were deemed essential to corroborate the bank statements and the assessee's explanation. The matter was remitted to the AO to verify and examine these certificates and decide afresh. Concerning the addition of Rs. 46,19,500/- for unexplained cash deposits, the assessee had filed an affidavit explaining the source from the sale of family jewelry, with gains offered in the return. As the AO had not recorded any finding on this, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the AO for fresh examination. For the addition of Rs. 1,10,31,195/- for unexplained investment in a flat, the Tribunal agreed with the Revenue that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and non-speaking. Given the remand of the matter concerning bank deposits, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remand this issue to the AO to examine the linkage between deposits and the investment holistically. The ground relating to the non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) was left undecided. Other grounds were considered generic and consequential.

SHREE MANJU MAA SEVA FOUNDATION REGD,MUMBAI vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 309/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2024-25Allowed

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and directed the CIT(E) to decide the application afresh. The CIT(E) is to consider the correct Form 10AC and grant the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

KRISHAN KHADARIA,MUMBAI vs DY. CIT (CC) 4 (3), MUMBAI

ITA 3201/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with a sufficient and effective opportunity to cross-examine the parties whose statements were relied upon by the AO. Consequently, the matters were remanded back to the AO for de novo assessment.

M/S. SALONI JEWELLERS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4383/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the 137-day delay in filing the appeals, citing the principle of substantial justice over technical considerations. The appeals were set aside and restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions for the Assessee to cooperate and be vigilant in proceedings.