ITAT Mumbai Judgments — September 2025

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's claim that the delay was due to technical issues and not mala fide. Considering the trust's charitable object and CBDT circulars, the Tribunal condoned the delay and remitted the issue to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned a minor delay of 7 days in filing the present appeal. For the significant delay in the first appeal, the Tribunal found that the assessee had not provided adequate supporting documents. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Ld. Commissioner to decide the condonation of delay afresh after considering the assessee's application, affidavit, and documents.

The Tribunal, relying on various High Court judgments, held that CBDT circulars do not curtail the appellate authorities' powers to condone delays. It affirmed that the filing of Form 10B is a procedural requirement, and its belated submission should not automatically lead to the denial of the Section 11 exemption. The AO was directed to consider the belatedly filed Form 10B as valid and re-determine the tax liability qua deduction/exemption claimed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons genuine and convincing. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, noting that the assessment was made without proper appreciation of the JDA and actual accrual of consideration.

The Tribunal held that it is the bounden duty of the AO to refer the property valuation to the Departmental Valuation Officer if the assessee disputes the stamp duty valuation. The AO should provide an option to the assessee for such a reference to ensure fair treatment.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and affirmed by the CIT was unsustainable. It noted that no specific allegation of rigging was made against the assessee, and the assessee had discharged its onus by providing all necessary documents and explanations.

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 the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to record proper non-satisfaction regarding the assessee's suo motu disallowance before applying Rule 8D. Following jurisdictional High Court decisions, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 67 is not fatal to the claim for foreign tax credit, as Rule 128(9) is directory and not mandatory, and does not prescribe disallowance. The assessment was made under Section 143(1) and not through a regular assessment, and Form 67 was filed before the assessment proceedings concluded.

The Tribunal held that selecting the wrong section is not a ground to reject the application, especially when the assessee is an old trust with existing registrations. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's claim that the wrong section was selected inadvertently.

The Tribunal held that the payments for commission and warehousing were in the nature of business income accruing outside India and were not fees for technical services. Therefore, they were not chargeable to tax in India, and the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not sustainable.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) and granted the assessee an opportunity to present their case. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the appeal afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

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 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 held that the PCIT erred in invoking revisionary jurisdiction under Section 263. The Tribunal found that the assessee had adequately explained the disallowance of provision for doubtful debts, and the AO had accepted these explanations. Regarding the insurance claim, the Tribunal found that the assessee had correctly reduced it from the block of assets for depreciation purposes, in line with Section 32 read with Section 43(6)(c). Therefore, the PCIT's order was set aside, and the AO's order was sustained.

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 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 the assessee company is a tax resident of Israel and is therefore eligible for the benefits of the India-Israel DTAA. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was upheld.

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 held that the Ld. Commissioner rejected the application based on a technical mistake of mentioning sub-clause (ii) instead of (iii) under Section 12A(1)(ac) of the Act. For substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the 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 found that the assessee's error was inadvertent. It remitted the issue back to the CIT(E) with a direction to consider the application under the correct Section 80G(5)(iii) and decide it for final approval before the provisional approval expires, ensuring continuous benefit of Section 80G.

The Tribunal held that denial of TDS credit solely because it does not appear in Form 26AS is incorrect. The primary evidence of deduction, coupled with Section 205 of the Income Tax Act and CBDT instructions, mandates allowing the credit.

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.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities, allowing the Assessee's appeal. It directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the tax liability by considering the stamp duty value of the property as on the date of the agreement to sell (14/11/2011), in line with the first proviso to Section 56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment beyond 4 years was not justified as there was no new tangible material and the AO failed to establish a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. For the additions related to bogus cash sales, the Tribunal found that the estimation was made without corroborating evidence or a reasonable nexus with seized material.

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 capital gains arising from the alienation of shares of Flipkart Singapore by eBay Singapore were not taxable in India. The Tribunal ruled that Article 13(5) of the India-Singapore DTAA, which allocates taxing rights to the State of residence, prevailed over domestic law deeming provisions. The transaction did not fall under other applicable clauses of Article 13.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of payment, including cheques, receipts, and bank statements, which were corroborated by the sale deed. Therefore, the denial of deduction was unwarranted.

The Tribunal held that Business Support Services (BSS) are not in the nature of Fees for Technical Services (FTS) as they are managerial in nature and do not make technical knowledge available. Software license charges and GST scoping charges/reimbursements were also held not to be royalty or FTS, respectively, based on earlier judicial precedents.

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 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 reopening of assessment beyond four years was not justified as there was no new tangible material and the AO failed to establish non-disclosure of material facts by the assessee. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed. For subsequent assessment years, the grounds related to reopening were dismissed, while additions for bogus cash sales were deleted due to lack of corroborating evidence.

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 held that the reopening of assessment for AY 2013-14 was invalid as it was done after 4 years without new tangible material and without establishing a failure on the assessee's part to disclose material facts, constituting a change of opinion. For other assessment years, the grounds regarding reopening were also dismissed. The additions for bogus cash sales were deleted for multiple years as they were made without corroborating evidence and based on arbitrary extrapolation. Additions related to interest on unsecured loans were dismissed for AY 2014-15, 2015-16, while for AY 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20, these grounds were also allowed based on findings for AY 2014-15.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 171 days in filing the appeal, subject to a deposit of Rs. 11,000/-. Considering that the impugned order was ex-parte and for substantial justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

The Tribunal held that Section 80P(4) is a proviso that excludes co-operative banks functioning like commercial banks from claiming deductions under Section 80P, but it does not preclude a co-operative society from claiming deduction on interest income earned from investments made with other co-operative banks, as long as the investments are with a co-operative society. The Tribunal followed the principle that if two constructions are possible, the one favoring the assessee should be adopted.

The Tribunal held that the properties were effectively transferred to Shri Vinod Kumar B Goenka, who enjoyed and used them for his business purposes. The Tribunal noted that the transfer was recognized by the AO in a prior assessment year. The Tribunal further stated that even if the sale deed was executed by the firm, the income should be assessed in the hands of the person who earned it, which in this case was Shri Vinod Kumar B Goenka.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment for AY 2013-14 was invalid because it was done after more than four years without new tangible material and without establishing the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. For other assessment years concerning additions for unsecured loans and interest, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the creditors. However, the ad hoc addition for alleged bogus cash sales was deleted due to lack of corroborating evidence and a reasonable nexus with seized material.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It deleted the addition related to the opening cash balance of ₹14,56,355/-, accepting it as a consistently reported figure in previous years. However, the remaining amount of ₹28,15,600/-, which the assessee attempted to re-characterize as undisclosed business receipts, was held to be liable for taxation as undisclosed income.

The Tribunal, considering the peculiar facts, offered one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate the delay with a sworn affidavit and relevant medical documents. The case was remanded to the Ld. Commissioner for fresh adjudication.