ITAT Mumbai Judgments — August 2025

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after hearing both sides. The matter was remanded to the AO to give the appellant one more opportunity to produce all details of cash deposited and proof of claims under Section 80C, considering the cash deposits were from retail sales.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits due to the assessee's non-compliance. Considering the assessee's argument that the addition was protective and a substantive assessment was on the directors, and that such protective additions cannot be made mechanically, the Tribunal remanded all issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction for the assessee to strictly comply.

The Tribunal held that substantial justice must be picked against technicalities. Therefore, the quantum appeal was remitted back to the Ld.CIT(A) for necessary verification, and consequently, the penalty appeal was also remitted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, stating that the assessee had sufficient cause. However, due to the assessee's non-compliance before the lower authorities, the matter was remanded back to the AO for de novo assessment, with a cost of Rs. 25,000 imposed on the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing an opportunity for rectification and without deciding on the merits. The Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee to rectify the error and to pass a de novo order after considering the submissions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee may be given one more opportunity to present his case before the first appellate authority, adhering to the principles of natural justice. The issues were remanded for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities disregarded the assessee's submission to refer the matter to the DVO for estimation of fair market value. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the AO to refer it to the DVO and pass a fresh order.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity of being heard and that the Ld. Commissioner failed to decide the appeal on merit. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order.

The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing the appeal was substantial and not adequately substantiated for the initial period. However, emphasizing substantive justice over procedural technicalities, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the matter was pending before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) has all powers to decide the issue, there was no requirement for the PCIT to initiate proceedings under Section 263. Consequently, the order u/s 263 was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was based on Form 26AS and TDS deducted, without sufficient corroborative evidence of actual receipt of interest by the assessee. The assessee's claim that the interest was waived was supported by an oral agreement, and the burden was on the revenue to prove receipt.

The Tribunal held that no addition for commission could be presumed as there was no evidence of commission payment. The Tribunal noted that in a related case, no commission addition was made for the other party involved in circular trading. The additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) can only be levied on the income that ultimately survives the appellate process. Since the addition was restricted to the profit element, the penalty should also be restricted to that amount.

The Tribunal held that corporate guarantee is an international transaction and restricted the ALP to 0.5%, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision. For notional interest, the Tribunal directed it to be determined based on LIBOR plus a spread of 1% (total 2.91%), considering the need for a margin over the base rate. The disallowance under Section 14A was confirmed to be limited to investments yielding exempt income.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that the Assessee's reasons for delay were genuine and unintentional. On merits, it was observed that the entire consideration for the property was found to be genuine in the husband's assessment, and the difference was also attributed to the husband's investment. Therefore, no addition could be made in the Assessee's hands.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). The delay in filing the first appeal was condoned, considering the liberal view taken by various High Courts and the Apex Court. Both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposit of Rs. 23,00,000 was sufficiently explained as withdrawals made before demonetization for land purchase, which was reflected in the bank statement. The Tribunal also accepted the agricultural income of Rs. 9,35,860 from the assessee's own activities, supported by land records, but upheld the addition of Rs. 4,31,544 from the AOP as rental income due to insufficient evidence.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was non-compliant throughout the appellate proceedings, but considering the principles of natural justice, it granted the assessee one more opportunity. The issues were remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present its case before the AO, adhering to principles of natural justice. The issues were remanded to the AO for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the CIT(A) with a direction to consider the detailed submissions filed by the appellant. The CIT(A) is instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the appellant to present all relevant details.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding that the assessee had made out a reasonable cause. The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court judgments emphasizing a liberal approach to condoning delays to ensure substantial justice and that substantive justice must prevail over procedural technicalities.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was based on incorrect facts and conclusions. The notice issued under Section 148 was found to be invalid because the approval for reopening was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax instead of the Joint Commissioner, as required under Section 151 of the Income Tax Act for notices issued beyond four years from the end of the assessment year. Consequently, the notice and the reassessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal noted that no evidence was furnished by the Ld. CIT(A) and, in the interest of justice, remitted the issue back to the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to pass a detailed order on merits after considering the assessee's evidence. The Tribunal also emphasized the need to grant a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that while the AO and CIT(A) had strong grounds for their decision, principles of natural justice require that the appellant be given a reasonable opportunity to present its case, especially since the transacting companies were claimed to be in liquidation. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh opportunity.

The Tribunal held that no addition could be sustained on the basis of alleged circular trading without evidence of income generation or commission payment. Regarding donations, the Tribunal found the source explained and deleted the protective additions, as well as the commission payment addition, upholding the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 332 days, stating that the Assessee's explanation was bonafide and for substantial justice, subject to a deposit. The Tribunal further held that the CIT(A) does not have the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and should decide on merits.

The Tribunal held that the furnishing of the audit report (Form 10B) is a procedural requirement and its substantial compliance is sufficient. The delay in filing should not deny the benefit of exemption, especially when the legislature has conferred powers to condone such delays.

The Tribunal condoned the 332-day delay in filing the appeal, subject to a deposit, observing that the Ld. Commissioner should not have dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. The assessment orders were also found to be ex-parte.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting no malafide intention and sufficient cause. The Tribunal held that the lower authorities did not adequately verify the source of investments or the nature of the penny stock. The issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for verification of the source of investment.

The Tribunal found that the 100% disallowance of purchases was not justified, especially since the assessee had sold all items and its books of account were not disputed. The Tribunal directed the AO to retain an estimated addition of 12.5% on the impugned purchases, allowing the deduction for gross profit already declared.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided for the delay were vague and general, and failed to establish sufficient cause for condonation. The Tribunal noted that the company had a history of timely compliance for other tax-related matters, making the explanation for the inordinate delay unconvincing.

The Tribunal noted that the AO and CIT(A) did not properly verify the evidence, and the appeals were initially dismissed for non-prosecution due to the authorized representative's health issues. The Tribunal condoned the delay and remitted the issue to the CIT(A) to verify the source of investments.

The Tribunal held that the source of investment of Rs. 12,97,795/- was established, as the funds were borrowed from ECL Finance Ltd. and invested by them on behalf of the assessee. The amount not invested was refunded. Therefore, the addition retained by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the authorized representative's ill-health. On merits, it held that the lower authorities failed to adequately verify the source of investments and the nature of transactions. Consequently, the matter was remitted back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after proper verification and providing the assessee with an opportunity to substantiate the source of funds.

The Tribunal held that there was no evidence that the assessee had paid any commission, and the circular trading was undertaken for other purposes like bank guarantee replacement. Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal deleted the addition on account of commission. The issue of bogus donations was also decided in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that no addition could be made for commission income on circular trading as there was no evidence of commission payment, and the transactions were duly recorded in the books. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions of coordinate benches in similar cases.

The Tribunal held that while the amendment treating ULIP as a capital asset applied from A.Y. 2021-22, a ULIP policy where the benefit under Section 10(10D) was not taken qualifies as a 'capital asset' under the broad definition of Section 2(14)(a). Therefore, the appellant is entitled to treat the amount received as capital gains/loss, and the appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly directed the reduction of the penalty amount in line with the reduced quantum addition, as per Section 275(1A) of the Act. No contrary material was found to challenge the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay and adjudicating on merits. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay, considering the liberal view taken by higher courts, and to decide the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 11(3)(c) are applicable prospectively and not retrospectively. The AO erred in making the addition as the trust utilized the accumulated amount in the 6th year as per the unamended provisions.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) with defects regarding the section and date of the order appealed against. The Tribunal remitted the issue back to the Ld.CIT(A) to rectify these defects and pass a detailed order on merits.

The Tribunal held that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The issue raised in the quantum appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for necessary verification of records and evidence.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities disregarded the assessee's submissions and documentary evidence. Since part payment was received by cheque on dates prior to or around the date of the agreement, the provisions of Section 43CA(3) & (4) were applicable, making the assessee eligible for the benefit.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A r.w.r 8D should only be computed on investments that have actually yielded exempt income, as per pronouncements by the Delhi High Court and a Special Bench of the Tribunal. The AO was directed to recompute the disallowance accordingly.

The Tribunal upheld the validity of the proceedings under Sections 147/148, distinguishing the appellant's case from those requiring Section 153C, as only information was passed to the AO, not seized material. It affirmed that the share transactions were sham and merely accommodation entries, thereby confirming the AO's addition as income from other sources, as the Mukesh Choksi group was found to be involved in providing such entries.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment proceedings was bad in law because the transaction was in the nature of a license, not a transfer of possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 2(47) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, no capital gains accrued in the relevant assessment year.

The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without examining the merits. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee a proper opportunity.