ITAT Mumbai Judgments — March 2025

SAMIT ASHOK SONIMINDE,MUMBAI vs INT TAX COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2763/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2025AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking revisional powers under Section 263 solely for the reason that the AO did not initiate penalty proceedings, especially when there were no findings of misreporting in the assessment order. Penalty proceedings are independent of assessment proceedings.

DCIT-4(1)(1), MUMBAI vs B RAHEJA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 2677/MUM/2023[2015]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2025Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's disallowance was not justifiable. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was engaged in business and had incurred costs, and that not having revenue receipts does not negate the allowability of expenditure. Citing judicial precedent, the Tribunal concluded that the 'put to use' clause applies to capital assets only and that the assessee had established substantial activities in the project, demonstrating that the purchased property was put to use.

DCIT(IT)-3(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs MCKINSEY AND COMPANY KOMMANDITBOLAG, SWEDEN

ITA 2533/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2025AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as withdrawn. Liberty was granted to the assessee to seek restoration if the VSVS application did not materialize.

PRITI NILESH JAIN DAGA ,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER 19(2)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 4507/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2025AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in treating only the gain as income under Section 68, as the initial investment was reflected in the assessee's balance sheet. The revenue failed to provide new evidence to controvert this finding.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI vs PRITI NILESH JAIN DAGA, MUMBAI

ITA 4616/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2025AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in treating only the gain as income under Section 68, as the initial investment was reflected in the assessee's balance sheet. The revenue failed to provide new evidence to controvert this finding.

CONSOLIDATED INFRASTRUCTURE COMPAMY PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs ACIT, CIRCLE 6(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 462/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18Remanded

The Tribunal held that the expression 'sufficient cause' should be interpreted liberally. Refusing to condone delay can lead to a meritorious matter being thrown out, defeating the cause of justice. The Tribunal referred to Supreme Court observations emphasizing a liberal approach.

CEC- ITD CEM TPL JOINT VENTURE,MUMBAI vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4677/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2025AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO's reopening notice lacked proper supporting material and the order passed under Section 148A(d) did not consider the assessee's submissions. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the technical service fees, and the AO's allegations were not supported by facts.

CEC-ITD CEM TPL JOINT VENTURE,MUMBAI vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4678/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO's reopening notice lacked proper supporting material and the order passed under Section 148A(d) did not consider the assessee's submissions. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the technical service fees, and the AO's allegations were not supported by facts.

CEC- ITD CEM TPL JOINT VENTURE,MUMBAI vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4679/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2025AY 2022-23Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO's reopening notice lacked proper supporting material and the order passed under Section 148A(d) did not consider the assessee's submissions. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the technical service fees, and the AO's allegations were not supported by facts.

CEC - ITD CEM TPL JOINT VENTURE,MUMBAI vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4680/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2025AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO's reopening notice lacked proper supporting material and the order passed under Section 148A(d) did not consider the assessee's submissions. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the technical service fees, and the AO's allegations were not supported by facts.

CEC- ITD CEM TPL JOINT VENTURE,MUMBAI vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4681/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2025AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that the proceedings initiated under Section 147 and the notice under Section 148A were invalid. The notice under Section 148A(b) was issued with an incorrect figure of Rs. 97.11 lakhs for contingency expenses, and the AO failed to provide the supporting material to the assessee. The order passed under Section 148A(d) did not consider the assessee's submissions and relied on external information not provided in the show-cause notice. The Tribunal found these infirmities to be fatal to the reopening proceedings. Regarding the disallowance of Fees for Technical Services (FTS), the Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished exhaustive documentary evidence, including service agreements, work orders, invoices, scope of services, minutes of meetings, and correspondence, which proved the rendition of technical services and the payments made. The Tribunal noted that the AO's allegations were rebutted with proper explanations and documentary evidence. The statement relied upon by the AO was found to support the assessee's case. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition on account of FTS, finding no substance in the AO's allegations. The Tribunal's findings on FTS were applied mutatis mutandis to all assessment years. Consequently, the assessee's appeals were allowed, and the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

IFTEKHAR AHMAD,BHIWANDI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER INTERNATIONAL TAX WARD1(1)(1),MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 471/MUM/2025[2015-2016]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2025AY 2015-2016Withdrawn

The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal as they had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and deposited the tax. The DR did not object. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

OBEROI REALTY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4802/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2025AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the issue of annual letting value on unsold stock was decided in favour of the assessee in earlier years. Regarding disallowance under Section 14A, the Tribunal followed the Settlement Commission's order which accepted the assessee's offered disallowance.

OBEROI REALTY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE -4(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4803/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the issue of annual letting value on unsold stock was decided in favour of the assessee in earlier years. Regarding disallowance under Section 14A, the Tribunal followed the Settlement Commission's order which accepted the assessee's offered disallowance.

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-4 (1), MUMBAI vs OBEROI REALTY LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 5128/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2025AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the issue of annual letting value on unsold stock was decided in favour of the assessee in earlier years. Regarding disallowance under Section 14A, the Tribunal followed the Settlement Commission's order which accepted the assessee's offered disallowance.

ITO, MUMBAI vs BHUMIKA RAJESH VATNANI, MUMBAI

ITA 5177/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2025AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the AO relied solely on a generalized investigation report without proving the assessee's involvement in price manipulation. The assessee had provided documentary evidence for the purchase and sale of shares through banking channels and the stock exchange.

INCOME TAX OFFICER-42(1)(3),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs NAVITA SURESHKUMAR HETAMPURIA, MUMBAI

ITA 522/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2025AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) rightly allowed the appeal because the assessment order did not survive in view of the High Court's order. No material was placed by the revenue to controvert the findings of the Ld. CIT(A).

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs CEC-ITD CEM-TPL JOINT VENTURE , MUMBAI

ITA 5223/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2025AY 2022-23Allowed

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) was invalid and bad in law because the AO failed to provide the assessee with the supporting material or correct information, and the information provided (Rs. 97.11 lakhs) was incorrect. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not supply the assessee with the relevant material, such as the CTC report, which contained different figures. The Tribunal also found that the AO passed the order under Section 148A(d) without considering the assessee's submissions and without providing the necessary break-up of expenses to enable the assessee to file a rebuttal, thus violating Section 148A(c). Regarding the disallowance of FTS, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition. The Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished exhaustive documentary evidence, including service agreements, work orders, invoices, scope of services, minutes of meetings, and correspondence, which proved the rendering of technical services and the payments made. The Tribunal concluded that the AO's allegations lacked substance when viewed against the submitted documents and evidence. The AO's adverse inference based on a statement was also found to support the assessee's case. Therefore, the disallowance of FTS was not sustained. The findings for FTS were applied mutatis mutandis to all assessment years.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs CEC-ITD CEM-TPL JOINT VENTURE , MUMBAI

ITA 5224/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2025AY 2021-22Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO's reopening notice lacked proper supporting material and the order passed under Section 148A(d) did not consider the assessee's submissions. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the technical service fees, and the AO's allegations were not supported by facts.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs CEC-ITD CEM-TPL JOINT VENTURE , MUMBAI

ITA 5225/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2025AY 2019-20Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were unsustainable due to the AO's failure to provide the requisite material along with the show-cause notice. This violation of procedure prejudiced the assessee's right to file an effective reply, rendering the entire reassessment invalid.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs CEC-ITD CEM-TPL JOINT VENTURE , MUMBAI

ITA 5226/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2025AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) was invalid and bad in law because the AO failed to provide the assessee with the material in his possession, and the information provided (Rs. 97.11 lakhs) was incorrect. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not supply the seized CTC report, which contained different figures, to the assessee. Consequently, the proceedings initiated under Section 147 were quashed for the assessment years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20. Regarding the disallowance of fees for technical services, the Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished exhaustive documentary evidence, including service agreements, invoices, work orders, scope of services, minutes of meetings, and correspondence, which supported the genuineness of the technical services rendered and the payments made. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that the AO's allegations were unsubstantiated and that the payments for technical services could not be disallowed. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to FTS. The findings were applied mutatis mutandis to all assessment years. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-5(1), MUMBAI , MUMBAI vs CEC-ITD CEM-TPL JOINT VENTURE , MUMBAI

ITA 5227/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the AO's reopening notice lacked proper supporting material and the order passed under Section 148A(d) did not consider the assessee's submissions. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the technical service fees, and the AO's allegations were not supported by facts.

SEDEMAC MECHATRONICS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 5483/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2025AY 2020-21Partly Allowed

The tribunal held that the failure to obtain Form 3CL within the stipulated period meant the assessee did not comply with the conditions for weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB). The alternative claim for deduction under other sections was restored to the AO for fresh examination.

SEDEMAC MECHATRONICS LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 15(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 5484/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2025AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The tribunal held that the failure to obtain Form 3CL within the stipulated period meant the assessee did not comply with the conditions for weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB). The alternative claim for deduction under other sections was restored to the AO for fresh examination.

ACIT CC -6(1), MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs NILESH RAMESH TOSHNIWAL, PUNE

ITA 5656/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2025AY 2020-21Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the addition could not be made based solely on a Whatsapp conversation with a third party and a statement from that party, especially since the assessee denied the transaction, no cross-examination was granted, and no corroborating evidence was found from the assessee's premises. The statement was also later retracted.

GLOBAL EDUCATION TRUST,MUMBAI vs COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 5672/MUM/2024[2024-25]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2025AY 2024-25Allowed

The Tribunal held that the mistake was inadvertent and allowed the assessee an opportunity to rectify the error. The CIT(E) was directed to decide the issue of registration afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

HOTEL AND RESTUARANT ASSOCIATION,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

ITA 2252/MUM/2024[2016-2017]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2025AY 2016-2017Partly Allowed

The Tribunal observed that the issue was factual and required detailed investigation and verification of the assessee's activities. The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with an opportunity of hearing for both parties.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs INDIABULLS REAL ESTATELIMITED, GURGAON

ITA 2179/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2025AY 2018-19Dismissed

The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A is limited to the amount of exempt income earned and that the explanation inserted by the Finance Act 2022 is prospective. The Tribunal also held that ESOP expenses are allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Act.

B N INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs DCIT-CIRCLE 41(4)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6672/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2025AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that there was a reasonable cause for the belated filing. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the issues back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) in the interest of natural justice.

INDIANOIL ADANI VENTURES LIMITED) (FORMERLY KNOWN AS INDIAN OILTANKING LTD,MUMBAI vs ASSTT. COMM. OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 15(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 6711/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2025AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that Grounds 1 and 2 were not pressed and were dismissed. Regarding Grounds 3 to 6 concerning Section 14A disallowance, the Tribunal observed that the assessee made an ad hoc disallowance, and the AO applied Rule 8D considering all investments. The Tribunal, referencing the Special Bench decision in ACIT v. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd., held that only investments yielding dividend income should be considered for calculating disallowance under Rule 8D. Consequently, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) to examine the applicability of this decision. Grounds 3 to 6 were allowed for statistical purposes. For Grounds 7 and 8 (provision for warranty), the Tribunal noted that the AO disallowed the claim and the CIT(A) upheld it. The assessee argued for a proportionate claim based on previous ITAT orders. The Tribunal found that the issue was covered by ITAT orders in the assessee's own cases and restored the matter to the AO for fresh decision. For Grounds 9, 10, and 11 (leasehold premium, other charges, and right of way charges), the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated these issues at all, dismissing them on a technical ground. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had made submissions before the CIT(A) and AO regarding these claims, referencing previous appellate decisions. Citing the co-terminus powers of the CIT(A) and the mandate under Section 250, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had grossly failed to adhere to the provisions by not examining the merits of the claims. Therefore, these matters were remanded back to the CIT(A) for a proper adjudication, allowing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard. Grounds 9, 10, and 11 were allowed for statistical purposes. The appeal was partly allowed.

DCIT, CIRCLE 8, PUNE, PUNE vs GABRIEL INDIA LIMITED, PUNE

ITA 1710/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2025AY 2020-21Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of management fees was made on an ad-hoc basis without questioning the books of account and was therefore not sustainable. Regarding CSR expenses, the Tribunal noted that there is no restriction in the Act preventing deduction under Section 80G if the donee institutions are registered, even if the expenses were disallowed under Section 37(1).

DCIT, CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE vs GABRIEL INDIA LIMITED, PUNE

ITA 1709/PUN/2024[2019]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2025Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of management fees was made on an ad-hoc basis without questioning the books of account and was therefore not sustainable. Regarding CSR expenses, the Tribunal noted that there is no restriction in the Act preventing deduction under Section 80G if the donee institutions are registered, even if the expenses were disallowed under Section 37(1).

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 8, PUNE vs GABRIEL INDIA LIMITED, PUNE

ITA 1708/PUN/2024[2018]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2025Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of management fees was made on an ad-hoc basis without questioning the books of account and was therefore not sustainable. Regarding CSR expenses, the Tribunal noted that there is no restriction in the Act preventing deduction under Section 80G if the donee institutions are registered, even if the expenses were disallowed under Section 37(1).

SHIVAJI VISHNUPANT VIDHATE ,MUMBAI vs DCIT CIRCLE 7(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 71/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2025AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for decision on merits.

NH SECURITIES LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs JCIT (OSD) CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

ITA 155/MUM/2025[1999-2000]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2025AY 1999-2000Allowed

The Tribunal held that the show cause notice for penalty was vague as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) was being invoked. Following the Bombay High Court's Full Bench decision, the Tribunal found that such a defect vitiates the penalty proceedings.

EKTA SAHAKARI PATPEDHI MARYADIT,VIRAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, ASSESSMENT UNIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 106/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2025AY 2020-21Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not considered the assessee's detailed submissions and overlooked various binding decisions of the Supreme Court, jurisdictional High Court, and the ITAT. It was noted that the assessee does not possess a banking license and its activities are confined to its members, not the public at large, making Section 80P(4) inapplicable. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court judgments in *Citizen Co-operative Society Ltd. vs ACIT* and *The Mavilayi Service Cooperative vs. Commissioner of Income Tax* to establish that cooperative credit societies not holding banking licenses are eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Furthermore, applying the principle that if two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible, the one favoring the assessee must be adopted, as laid down in *CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd.*, the Tribunal upheld the assessee's plea. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and directed the AO to allow the deductions claimed by the assessee for both assessment years. Grounds related to interest and penalty were rendered academic. The Tribunal also imposed a cost of Rs. 12,500/- on the assessee for each appeal (totaling Rs. 25,000/-) due to substantial delay and a casual approach in pursuing the appeals.

MEHER MIRACLES PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs ACIT, CIRCLE 15(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 316/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee, a private limited company, maintained audited books of account and the cash deposits were out of available cash balance as per the books. The contention that financial statements were unaudited was due to an inadvertent mistake in submission.

VIVEKRAMESHCHANDRA RATHOD ,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER-41(4)(4), MUMBAI

ITA 315/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2025AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after considering the factual position and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, directing the assessee to provide a fair opportunity of hearing.

PRIYAL JATIN MANIK,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 34(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 396/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed7 Mar 2025AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. The Tribunal held that it was appropriate to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication, allowing the assessee to furnish all necessary documents and details.

ACIT CC-6(1), MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs DINESH JAIPRAKASH BAHETI, NANDED

ITA 5682/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: Disposed7 Mar 2025AY 2022-23Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the WhatsApp chat found from the mobile phone of a third party, without any corroborative evidence or material found from the possession of the assessee or through other inquiries, cannot be used to make additions. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's observations regarding Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, stating that the authenticity of data retrieved from electronic devices must be proved by following the prescribed procedure. Since the Revenue failed to authenticate the data or provide corroborative evidence, the WhatsApp chat lacked evidentiary value. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that if the AO relied on documents seized from a third party pertaining to the assessee, proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153C, not Section 147. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s deletion of the additions. The findings for AY 2021-22 and 2022-23 were held to be mutatis mutandis applicable.

ROTARY ASSOCIATION OF DOMBIVALI SAUDAMINI,MUMBAI vs CIT(EXEMPTION) , PUNE

ITA 239/MUM/2025[NA]Status: Disposed7 Mar 2025Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The orders passed by the CIT(E) were set aside and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Appeals related to previously cancelled orders were deemed infructuous but would be decided afresh.

REENA ASHUTOSH SINGH ,MUMBAI vs ITO, WARD 28(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 330/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Mar 2025AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding reasonable cause. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals without adjudicating on merits and thus restored the issues to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

INCOME TAX OFFICER-10(3)(1), AAYKAR BHAVAN vs PRATHAM INTERNATONAL PVT LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 405/MUM/2025[2018]Status: Disposed7 Mar 2025Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in setting aside the assessment order as it was not a best judgment order. However, considering the additional evidence submitted, the Tribunal remitted the appeal back to the AO for a detailed de-novo assessment.

ACIT C.C. 35, MUMBAI vs M/S. MARICO FOODS LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 7397/MUM/2004[2000-2001]Status: Disposed7 Mar 2025AY 2000-2001Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that corporate office expenses and depreciation should not be allocated to the Goa and Kanjikode undertakings for Section 80IB deduction. It also ruled that finance costs and miscellaneous expenses were wrongly allocated by the AO and CIT(A). The inclusion of sales tax, CST, and marketing cess in total turnover for Section 80HHC deduction was also decided in favor of the assessee.

ASHUTOSH RANG BAHADUR SINGH,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 28(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 331/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed7 Mar 2025AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding reasonable cause. The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals without adjudicating on merits and thus restored the issues to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

ACIT CC -6(1), MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs DINESH JAIPRAKASH BAHETI, NANDED

ITA 5608/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: Disposed7 Mar 2025AY 2021-22Dismissed

The Tribunal held that WhatsApp chats found from a third party's mobile, without corroborative evidence from the assessee's possession or other inquiries, lack evidentiary value. The AO should have proceeded under Section 153C if relying on documents seized from another person pertaining to the assessee.

ROTARY ASSOCIATION OF DOMBIVALI SAUDAMINI ,MUMBAI vs CIT(EXEMPTION), PUNE

ITA 240/MUM/2025[N.A]Status: Disposed7 Mar 2025Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The orders passed by the CIT(E) were set aside and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Appeals related to previously cancelled orders were deemed infructuous but would be decided afresh.

ACIT C.C.- 35, MUMBAI vs M/S. MARICO INDSUTRIES LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 4680/MUM/2006[2002-2003]Status: Disposed7 Mar 2025AY 2002-2003Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that corporate office expenses and depreciation should not be allocated to the Goa and Kanjikode undertakings for Section 80IB deduction. It also ruled that finance costs and miscellaneous expenses were wrongly allocated by the AO and CIT(A). The inclusion of sales tax, CST, and marketing cess in total turnover for Section 80HHC deduction was also decided in favor of the assessee.

ROTARY ASSOCIATION OF DOMBIVALI SAUDAMINI ,MUMBAI vs CIT(EXEMPTION) , PUNE

ITA 241/MUM/2025[N.A]Status: Disposed7 Mar 2025Allowed

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. The orders passed by the CIT(E) were set aside and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Appeals related to previously cancelled orders were deemed infructuous but would be decided afresh.

ANNAPURNA PROPERTIES,MUMBAI vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, THANE, THANE

ITA 6959/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed7 Mar 2025AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

The Tribunal reduced the estimated profit rate on on-money receipts from 15% to 9%, considering the assessee's business profile and past profit declarations. For accommodation loans, the Tribunal noted that the assessment years in question were unabated, implying the AO could not make additions beyond the scope of the original assessment.