ITAT Mumbai Judgments — August 2025

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 held that the mention of utilizing funds outside India in the objects clause of the MOA does not necessarily lead to rejection of registration under section 12AB. It noted that the issue is covered by various High Court and Tribunal decisions, which state that application of income outside India is not a relevant criterion for rejecting registration, and that the exemption under section 11 is restricted to income applied in India. The Tribunal also set aside the rejection of application for registration under section 80G.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 295 days, acknowledging the reasonable cause presented by the assessee. The appeals were set aside to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 295 days, finding a reasonable cause for the belated filing. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the appeals for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

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 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 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 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 condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. On merits, the Tribunal held that adjustments made by the CPC under Section 143(1) without providing an opportunity of being heard violated the principles of natural justice and the mandate of Section 143(1)(a) of the Act.

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 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 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 found the reasons for the delay unconvincing but, considering that justice must be served, decided to remand the appeal to the AO. This is subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 30,000/- to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund.

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 penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be levied on additions made on an estimated basis. Disallowance of purchases on an ad-hoc/estimated basis does not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.

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 condoned the delay of 295 days, finding reasonable cause due to an oversight by the employee who left the organization. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) and remanded the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

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 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 held that the disallowance of the section 80P deduction was not justified because the amendment to section 143(1)(a)(v) was effective from April 1, 2021, and therefore not applicable to AY 2019-20. The return was filed within the permissible extended time under section 139(4).

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 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 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 condoned the delay in filing appeals, citing sufficient cause and the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal held that adjustments made under Section 143(1) without an opportunity of being heard to the assessee were unsustainable.

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 CPC's adjustment without issuing a notice and providing an opportunity to the assessee violated principles of natural justice and Section 143(1)(a) of the Act. The delay in filing appeals was condoned.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause and the principles of natural justice. On merits, the Tribunal held that adjustments made by the CPC under Section 143(1) without affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard were unsustainable.

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 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 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 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 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 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 clarified that for existing institutions with provisional approval, the application for regular Section 80G registration must be filed at least six months prior to the expiry of the provisional approval. It concluded that the assessee's application, filed on 30.09.2024 while provisional approval was valid until A.Y. 2025-26, was timely. Therefore, the CIT(E)'s rejection on grounds of limitation was set aside, and the CIT(E) was directed to examine the application on its merits.

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 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 ITAT held that the amendment to Section 11(3) by the Finance Act, 2022, is prospective in nature, applying from AY 2023-24 onwards for income accumulated thereafter, and does not retrospectively limit the utilization period for earlier accumulations. Relying on previous tribunal decisions and a Supreme Court judgment, the tribunal concluded that the addition made by the CPC on a debatable issue under Section 143(1) was incorrect and thus deleted the addition.

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) 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 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 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.