ITAT Mumbai Judgments — September 2025

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. The Ld. Commissioner had correctly restricted the disallowance based on the Hon'ble High Court's decision in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal held that interest on borrowings for acquiring land for business purposes should be capitalized until the commencement of business, even if the asset is not yet put to use. The addition of interest income was confirmed as conceded by the assessee, but the administrative expenses capitalization was partially allowed.

The Tribunal held that while the AO might be barred from entertaining a claim not made in the return, the appellate authority can consider such claims. Relying on the Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. case, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the deduction under section 54 and recompute capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. The Ld. Commissioner had correctly restricted the disallowance based on the Hon'ble High Court's decision in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 171 days subject to a payment of Rs. 11,000/-. Considering the ex-parte nature of the impugned order and the circumstances, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case back to the Commissioner for a fresh decision, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 67 is not fatal to the claim for FTC, as the provision is directory and not mandatory. The AO denied the claim without proper notice, violating the provisos to Section 143(1)(a).

The Tribunal held that the assessee had established sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the revenue had not contradicted the assessee's affidavit filed to explain the delay. Citing the Supreme Court's decisions in Union of India vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeeboy and Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST. Katiji & Ors., the Tribunal emphasized that a liberal approach should be adopted to do substantial justice and avoid meritorious matters being thrown out at the threshold. The Tribunal found the explanation for the delay to be bonafide and genuine, attributing it to circumstances beyond the assessee's control, including internal disputes and administrative disruptions. The Tribunal also noted that the issue of deduction of interest earned by a group housing society from its deposit with a cooperative bank was no longer res integra, having been decided in favour of the assessee by coordinate benches. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, condoned the delay, and restored the case to the CIT(A) for disposal on merits. The assessee was directed to present its case before the CIT(A) within 90 days. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the existence of objects allowing activities outside India does not automatically lead to a violation of the Act. It also noted that the CIT(E) did not provide specific deficiencies regarding the assessee's activities. Therefore, the order of rejection was set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the time limit for realization of export proceeds is not a specified date for calculating the Section 10AA deduction. The issue was remitted to the AO for verification of details, similar to a previous order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate the sources of deposits and the explanation for cash withdrawals was inconsistent with the deposit dates. Therefore, a portion of the deposits was treated as undisclosed income.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 171 days subject to a payment of Rs. 11,000/-. Considering the ex-parte nature of the impugned order and the circumstances, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case back to the Commissioner for a fresh decision, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is required to decide the appeal on merits and cannot dismiss it for non-prosecution, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's health issues preventing representation. Considering principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to file evidence and the AO to verify it.

The Tribunal found that the rejection was due to a technical mistake in citing the sub-clause, despite the Commissioner's knowledge of the correct provision. The case was remanded back to the Commissioner with directions to treat the application as valid under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and decide afresh after providing a hearing.

The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted sufficient inquiry on the issues of Section 80IA and Section 80G deductions. The PCIT's order under Section 263 was found to be unjustified as the assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the sale of shares of a Singapore resident company by a Singapore resident company falls under Article 13(5) of the India-Singapore DTAA. This article allocates exclusive taxing rights to the state of residence of the alienator, which is Singapore. Therefore, the capital gains are not taxable in India.

The Tribunal found that the grounds of appeal and the impugned order in the current case were identical to those in the previously decided ITA No. 2193/Mum/2025. Since an order had already been passed by the Tribunal in the earlier appeal, the present appeal was deemed infructuous and dismissed.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by reducing the disallowance on Work in Progress to 15% and remanded the issue of interest on late payment of TDS/Service Tax and Section 41(1) addition for verification. The ground regarding donation was dismissed as not pressed, and the PF/ESIC contribution issue was dismissed based on a Supreme Court ruling. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged her onus by providing details and documents, including her husband's ITR, bank statements, loan sanction letters, and payment details, which demonstrated that the property purchase and payments were made by her husband from his own sources. The Commissioner had rightly deleted the addition.

The Tribunal held that credit for TDS cannot be denied solely because it does not appear in Form 26AS, especially when the assessee has provided primary evidence of deduction and offered the income to tax. The levy of interest under sections 234B and 234C was also set aside.

The Tribunal held that the addition in the hands of the assessee was unjustified as the entire investment was made by her husband from his explained sources, and her Form 26AS showed nil investment. The inclusion of her name as a joint owner was for convenience.

The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's claim and deleted the addition, finding that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct independent enquiries or dislodge the documentary evidence provided by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the Revenue had accepted similar transactions and allowed Section 10(38) exemption for part of the same share purchase in the preceding assessment year. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO under Section 68 was not justified as it was based on an unaudited balance sheet, and the audited balance sheet showed a much lower receivable amount from members. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was deleted as it was a mutual undertaking not carrying out business. The disallowance of expenses due to non-production of evidence was also deleted based on the principle of mutuality.

The Tribunal found that the rejection was due to a technical mistake in citing the sub-clause, despite the Commissioner's knowledge of the correct provision. The case was remanded back to the Commissioner with directions to treat the application as valid under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and decide afresh after providing a hearing.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was bad in law as it was based on a change of opinion. However, the additions related to estimated bogus cash sales were allowed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was bad in law as it was based on a change of opinion. However, the additions related to estimated bogus cash sales were allowed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) is prospective from AY 2015-16, reversing the CIT(A)'s partial disallowance. For Section 14A and related issues, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's grounds, following the principle of consistency with prior decisions.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was bad in law as it was based on a change of opinion. However, the additions related to estimated bogus cash sales were allowed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was bad in law as it was based on a change of opinion. However, the additions related to estimated bogus cash sales were allowed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was bad in law as it was based on a change of opinion. However, the additions related to estimated bogus cash sales were allowed to be deleted.

The Tribunal found that the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals without providing a specific show cause notice or a clear opportunity for the assessee to present reasons and evidence for the delay. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the matters back.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, agreeing that Section 68 was not attracted and that only commission income should be assessed. The addition was directed to be estimated at 1% of the total debit transactions.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) is prospective from AY 2015-16, reversing the CIT(A)'s partial disallowance. For Section 14A and related issues, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's grounds, following the principle of consistency with prior decisions.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) is prospective from AY 2015-16, reversing the CIT(A)'s partial disallowance. For Section 14A and related issues, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's grounds, following the principle of consistency with prior decisions.

The Tribunal restored both the assessment and penalty orders to the jurisdictional AO for fresh adjudication on merits. This decision was made considering the assessee's illiteracy and the legal heir's explanation of lack of awareness leading to non-compliance during the various proceedings, ensuring due opportunity for the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) is prospective from AY 2015-16, reversing the CIT(A)'s partial disallowance. For Section 14A and related issues, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's grounds, following the principle of consistency with prior decisions.

The Tribunal restored both the assessment and penalty orders to the jurisdictional AO for fresh adjudication on merits. This decision was made considering the assessee's illiteracy and the legal heir's explanation of lack of awareness leading to non-compliance during the various proceedings, ensuring due opportunity for the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, agreeing that Section 68 was not attracted and that only commission income should be assessed. The addition was directed to be estimated at 1% of the total debit transactions.

The Tribunal found that the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals without providing a specific show cause notice or a clear opportunity for the assessee to present reasons and evidence for the delay. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the matters back.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was bad in law as it was based on a change of opinion. However, the additions related to estimated bogus cash sales were allowed to be deleted.

The Tribunal noted the AO failed to conduct independent verification to establish unaccounted cash with the assessee. It ruled that when the assessee denies a transaction, the onus shifts to the revenue to prove the use of unaccounted cash for trading. As the revenue provided no such evidence, the addition under Section 69 was deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) is prospective from AY 2015-16, reversing the CIT(A)'s partial disallowance. For Section 14A and related issues, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's grounds, following the principle of consistency with prior decisions.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 40(a)(ia) is prospective from AY 2015-16, reversing the CIT(A)'s partial disallowance. For Section 14A and related issues, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's grounds, following the principle of consistency with prior decisions.

The Tribunal held that the receipts aggregating to ₹1,75,18,04,418/- should be excluded from the calculation of total turnover from core shipping activities. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the tonnage tax scheme under Section 115VB, which is applicable to income derived from the operation of qualified ships. The Tribunal found that the receipts in question, such as reimbursement of overheads for managed vessels, sundry receipts, and profits on sale of vessels and other assets, were not directly derived from the core operation of qualified ships. Therefore, these receipts did not form part of the 'core activities' as contemplated by the tonnage tax scheme. The Tribunal reasoned that the purpose of the tonnage tax scheme is to provide a simplified tax regime for shipping operations, and income from ancillary or unrelated activities should be assessed under normal provisions. The Tribunal directed that the adjustment of 0.25% of turnover should be calculated based on the turnover from core shipping activities only, excluding the disputed receipts. The operative direction is to recalculate the adjustment accordingly.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to conduct adequate enquiry. The AO should have investigated the matter by recording statements from the assessee's sons and examining the source of cash sales of the company. The addition was deleted due to lack of proper enquiry.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 on 29/07/2022 was barred by limitation, as the extended time limit under TOLA expired on 30/06/2021. Consequently, the entire assessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 on 27.04.2022 for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation as the six-year period expired on 31.03.2022. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in initiating revision proceedings as the AO had taken a plausible view supported by judicial precedents. The Tribunal found no mis-match in the provision for doubtful debts and that the insurance claim was correctly reduced from the block of assets for depreciation calculation.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 148 was bad in law as it was based on a change of opinion. However, the additions related to estimated bogus cash sales were allowed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under section 263 was not sustainable as the AO had conducted a proper inquiry and applied his mind to the issues raised. The revision was not permissible merely because the PCIT held a different opinion or considered the inquiry inadequate. The Tribunal found that the AO's order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.