ITAT Mumbai Judgments — March 2025

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.

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.

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.

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.

AMBAJI AVENUES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 9(1) (2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 5216/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2012-13Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were not fully furnished to the assessee, which is a jurisdictional requirement. Non-furnishing or partial furnishing of reasons renders the assessment order bad in law.

ANAND CHHAYA CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs ITO WARD 22(1)6, MUMBAI

ITA 597/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2013-14Allowed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without proper consideration of the assessee's explanation and supporting evidence. The Tribunal found that the assessee had demonstrated a sufficient cause for the delay.

ZENITH BARTER PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs DCIT, CC 4(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6615/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2014-15Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 153A of the Act were not based on any incriminating material found as a result of the search and seizure operation. The balance sheet entries and third-party statements did not constitute such material.

ZENITH BARTER PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs DCIT CC 4(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6616/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the additions made under Section 153A of the Act were not based on any incriminating material found as a result of the search and seizure operation. The balance sheet entries and third-party statements did not constitute such material.

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.

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CC)-8(3), MUMBAI vs ORRA FINE JEWELLERY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 5161/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in admitting additional evidence and deleting the addition. The assessee had substantiated the genuineness of the transactions, and the advances were ultimately liquidated against sales which were offered to tax.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

BHINESH SHANTILAL DESAI ,MUMBAI vs ITO WARD 24(1)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 4403/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The Tribunal noted that lower authorities failed to consider CBDT Circular No. 3/2017, which allowed acceptance of cash deposits up to Rs. 2,50,000/- during demonetization without explanation or documentary evidence. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to relief up to Rs. 2,50,000/-.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs MACLEODS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 475/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2020-21Dismissed

The Tribunal held that R&D expenses incurred by the assessee were not directly related to the manufacturing units eligible for deduction under Section 80IE. Following previous decisions of the Tribunal, the appeal was dismissed.

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.

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.

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.

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

ITA 439/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2016-17Partly 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. The reasoning was that the AO himself observed the addition to be notional, and in reality, no income was earned from the house property. The Tribunal distinguished the case of PSB Industries India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the Revenue, stating that in that case, the assessee had declared a low rental income despite receiving a substantial interest-free deposit, leading to a determination of a much higher Annual Letting Value (ALV). In the present case, the assessee had not received any rental income, and the properties were shown in the balance sheet. The Tribunal also followed decisions of co-ordinate benches, including Shri Suresh Shivlal Bhasin (supra), which held that penalty for concealment cannot be levied on notional income. Consequently, 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. This was because the search was conducted on 04.02.2016, and Section 271AAB, which starts with a non-obstante clause and excludes the applicability of Section 271(1)(c) for undisclosed income pertaining to a specified previous year, was applicable. The Tribunal noted that Section 271AAB(1) applies to searches initiated on or after July 1, 2012, and AY 2016-17 fell under the definition of 'specified previous year' as the search was conducted in that year. Therefore, the penalty was quashed. The operative direction was the quashing of penalties for all AYs.

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.

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.

M/S. SALONI JEWELLERS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4384/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2014-15Partly 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

S 3 IMPACT FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs CIT(EXEMPTION), MUMBAI

ITA 459/MUM/2025[N.A ]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025Remanded

The Tribunal set aside both impugned orders, directing the CIT(E) to reconsider the applications for Section 12AB registration and Section 80G approval afresh. The Assessee is to be granted a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit all necessary documents and explanations, including those related to the trust's objectives.

PJS SECURITIES LLP ,MUMBAI vs ITO WARD, 3(2), MUMBAI

ITA 6840/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Mar 2025AY 2015-16Remanded

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering it bonafide and unintentional. The Tribunal noted that both lower authorities' orders were ex-parte and that additional evidence produced by the assessee was crucial. Therefore, the case was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.