ITAT Mumbai Judgments — October 2025

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal, considering their age, lack of technical knowledge, and bona fide belief that the issue was resolved. The CIT(A) should have provided an opportunity to be heard on the delay.

The Tribunal acknowledged that there was a reasonable cause preventing the assessee from effective representation before the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting one more opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10B was condonable, especially since it was filed before the return of income and in line with various High Court and Tribunal decisions.

The CIT(A) affirmed the addition but reduced it to Rs. 6,93,095/-, considering the cash balance on 08.11.2016 and the SBN deposits made during demonetization. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s findings after independent verification.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax only the profit element (2%) on disputed purchases, citing judicial precedents. For one assessment year, the reassessment was quashed as time-barred.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the assessee's explanation for non-receipt of notices to be genuine and beyond their control. The ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the appeals were remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO had considered the technical and non-technical accounts, tax provisions, and actual tax liability, taking a reasonable view. The Principal CIT failed to specify how the AO's order was erroneous or prejudicial to revenue, and thus the twin conditions for invoking Section 263 were not satisfied.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee claimed to be a joint owner for convenience, she failed to substantiate the source of Rs. 20,00,000/- in her name. However, considering the peculiar facts and the lack of clarity on her husband's case, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition. It noted that the Tribunal had previously set aside similar orders for a group concern, and the Settlement Commission had accepted some loans as genuine. The Tribunal found no justification for the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the appeal of the assessee is allowed. The Tribunal considered the totality of the facts and circumstances and was of the considered view that it was not a fit case for the levy of penalty under Section 272A. The assessee had demonstrated bonafide reasons for non-compliance. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had already set aside the assessment order to the AO for fresh assessment after considering the assessee's submissions regarding non-compliance and on merits. Therefore, the penalty order under Section 272A(1) was set aside. The ratio decidendi is that genuine and bonafide reasons for non-compliance with statutory notices, especially when demonstrated by the assessee and considered by the appellate authority in setting aside the assessment, can lead to the deletion of penalty under Section 272A.

The Tribunal held that the differential amount between the stamp duty value and the sale consideration was not more than the 10% "safe harbour" tolerance limit, which is applicable retrospectively. Therefore, the benefit of this limit could not be denied to the Assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order because the assessee failed to file any response or submissions despite several opportunities. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to make requisite compliance before the CIT(A). The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes. The specific findings on each ground of appeal were not detailed as the matter was remanded. The issue of levying interest under Sections 234B and 234C was implicitly to be decided by the CIT(A) upon remand.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the assessee's explanation for non-receipt of notices to be genuine and beyond their control. The ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the appeals were remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the assessee's explanation for non-receipt of notices to be genuine and beyond their control. The ex-parte orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the appeals were remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the claim of the revenue regarding cash payment over and above the agreement value was not tenable, especially considering the stamp duty valuation of the property and the fact that the entire payment was made by cheque. The addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Maharashtra Legal Aid Cell. On merits, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify if the interest/dividend was from co-operative societies, in which case it would be eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). If from banks, it would be treated as 'Income from other sources'.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s analysis of the comparables was not sufficiently detailed and that the filters used by the assessee for TNMM were not discernable. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the TPO for fresh analysis.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s analysis of the comparables was not sufficiently detailed and that the filters used by the assessee for TNMM were not discernable. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the TPO for fresh analysis.

The Tribunal held that the AO had considered the technical and non-technical accounts, tax provisions, and actual tax liability, taking a reasonable view. The Principal CIT failed to specify how the AO's order was erroneous or prejudicial to revenue, and thus the twin conditions for invoking Section 263 were not satisfied.

The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10IC is directory and delay in filing is condonable, citing various High Court and Tribunal decisions. The assessee's oversight was not a fault preventing the benefit.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's submission that they were not given a proper opportunity to explain the cash and credit entries, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax only the profit element (2%) on disputed purchases, citing judicial precedents. For one assessment year, the reassessment was quashed as time-barred.

The Tribunal condoned a delay of 13 days in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's explanation and affidavit regarding unintentional non-submission of supporting documents due to staff oversight, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO's order allowing the CSR expenditure as a deduction under Section 80G was not erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The Tribunal relied on various decisions of coordinate benches supporting the allowability of such deductions.

The Tribunal quashed the impugned revisionary order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 of the Act. The Tribunal noted that the factual and legal matrix of the present case was identical to that dealt with by a Coordinate Bench of the ITAT, Mumbai, in the case of KPMG Assurance and Consulting Services LLP for AY 2018-19 (ITA No. 2396/Mum/2025), which had also quashed the revisionary order. The Tribunal found that the PCIT had failed to consider the entire record, including previous assessment orders and reassessment proceedings, as contemplated by Explanation 1(b) to Section 263. The Tribunal also reiterated the principle that the PCIT cannot revise an assessment order merely because a different view could be taken, citing the judgment in CIT vs. Arvind Jewellers. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the AO had followed the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the assessee's own case for AY 2008-09, which is a valid basis for not making an addition. Therefore, the Tribunal held that no action under Section 263 was justifiable and allowed the grounds raised by the assessee. The operative direction was to quash the revisionary order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the genuine reasons provided by the assessee, including the ill health of the managing partner and the unfortunate demise of his wife. The Tribunal emphasized the principle of substantial justice over technicalities.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisionary order was not justified. It noted that the issue of allowing 80G deduction for donations made as CSR expenses is a settled matter, with various judicial precedents supporting the assessee's claim. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had made proper inquiries and taken a plausible view, fulfilling the requirement of examination.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the principles of substantial justice and liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Maharashtra Legal Aid Cell. On merits, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify if the interest/dividend was from co-operative societies, in which case it would be eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). If from banks, it would be treated as 'Income from other sources'.

The Tribunal held that providing financial assistance in Indian Rupees within India to Indian students for studies abroad does not constitute application of income outside India. The assessee had also passed a resolution to delete the word 'abroad' from the object clause to clarify its intent.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1312 days subject to a cost of Rs. 55,000/- to be deposited by the assessee. On merits, the Tribunal found that the issues required further adjudication and therefore, remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had indeed filed a return of income in response to the notice under Section 148, which was not considered by the AO or the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal. The matter was remitted to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer had conducted a thorough inquiry into the ESOP deduction claim. It clarified that the alleged 'recovery' was merely TDS funding, not a reimbursement of ESOP cost. The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisional order under Section 263 was unsustainable as the original assessment was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue, affirming that ESOP discount is an allowable business expenditure under Section 37(1).

The Tribunal held that penalty cannot be levied on an addition made on an estimate basis when the assessee voluntarily disclosed additional income to buy peace. The penalty order was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide necessary documentation to substantiate their claim regarding the interest income and the deduction. The lower authorities also could not properly adjudicate the issue due to lack of evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not represent before the lower authorities and raised legal grounds for the first time. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the appeals for assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16 back to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue of incriminating materials. For AY 2016-17, the appeal was also remitted for verification of evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities, especially when the delay is bonafide and beyond the assessee's control.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not represent before the lower authorities and raised legal grounds for the first time. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the appeals for assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16 back to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue of incriminating materials. For AY 2016-17, the appeal was also remitted for verification of evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not represent before the lower authorities and raised legal grounds for the first time. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the appeals for assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16 back to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue of incriminating materials. For AY 2016-17, the appeal was also remitted for verification of evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not represent before the lower authorities and raised legal grounds for the first time. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the appeals for assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16 back to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue of incriminating materials. For AY 2016-17, the appeal was also remitted for verification of evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not represent before the lower authorities and raised legal grounds for the first time. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the appeals for assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16 back to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue of incriminating materials. For AY 2016-17, the appeal was also remitted for verification of evidence.

The Tribunal held that providing financial assistance in Indian Rupees within India to Indian students for studies abroad does not constitute an application of income outside India. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation and resolution to delete 'abroad' from the object clause sufficient.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition. It noted that the Tribunal had previously set aside similar orders for a group concern, and the Settlement Commission had accepted some loans as genuine. The Tribunal found no justification for the disallowance.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax only the profit element (2%) on disputed purchases, citing judicial precedents. For one assessment year, the reassessment was quashed as time-barred.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's change of accounting method was uncalled for as the project was still under construction. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's revised computation, which showed a loss for both assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's change of accounting method was uncalled for as the project was still under construction. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's revised computation, which showed a loss for both assessment years.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not represent before the lower authorities and raised legal grounds for the first time. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the appeals for assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16 back to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue of incriminating materials. For AY 2016-17, the appeal was also remitted for verification of evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not represent before the lower authorities and raised legal grounds for the first time. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the appeals for assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16 back to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue of incriminating materials. For AY 2016-17, the appeal was also remitted for verification of evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Maharashtra Legal Aid Cell. On merits, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify if the interest/dividend was from co-operative societies, in which case it would be eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). If from banks, it would be treated as 'Income from other sources'.

The Tribunal held that since the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond three years from the end of AY 2017-18, the approval should have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner as per Section 151(ii). As the approval was obtained from the Commissioner, the reassessment proceedings were invalid.