ITAT Mumbai Judgments — October 2025

The Tribunal held that the application for registration was not belated. The Assessee had obtained provisional registration and filed the application within the stipulated time frame.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the disallowance under Section 14A regarding interest expenditure by relying on the Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in CIT vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. and further restricted the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) to the actual expenses. For the disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii), the Tribunal followed the precedent that interest-free advances are presumed to be made out of interest-free funds available with the assessee, thus deleting the disallowance.

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 condoned the delay, subject to a Rs. 5000/- deposit. The Tribunal observed that the reopening of the case under Section 148 after more than 3 years from the end of the assessment year, without proper approval as per Section 151(ii) of the Act, violated the provisions.

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 found the delay in filing the fresh application to be meager, reasonable, and not intentional, and therefore condoned it. It remanded both appeals (for registration under Section 12A and Section 80G) back to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision on merits, instructing to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the Ld.CIT(A) did not adjudicate on the assessee's application for admission of additional evidences. The Tribunal also noted issues with the notices sent to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the Ld. Commissioner's order, finding that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was bad in law as no independent verification was done by the AO. Furthermore, on merits, the loan was found to be from a different entity, M/s Suraksha Projects Ltd., which was explained and accepted in prior assessments.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in not granting a fair opportunity to the Assessee regarding the condonation of delay. Recognizing the Assessee's age, limited technical knowledge of online procedures, and bona fide belief, the Tribunal condoned the delay of 972 days. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) to decide the grounds of appeal on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee.

The tribunal noted that the appellant could not explain the sources of credit card payments. However, considering the appellant is a small businessman, the tribunal decided to give one more opportunity.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the Maharashtra Legal Aid Cell, noting no malafide intention from the assessee. The issue of disallowance of interest earned from fixed deposits with cooperative societies/banks was then considered on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, observing that substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities, especially when the order was passed against a deceased person without proper opportunity of hearing for the legal representatives. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the Revenue's appeal. It upheld the Commissioner's decision to quash the reassessment order, finding that the approval for the notice under Section 148 was not obtained from the specified authority as per Section 151(ii) of the Act, following the Apex Court's judgment in Rajeev Bansal.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating material found during the search, additions for unabated assessment years cannot be made. The appeals were remitted to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, considering the legal issues and verifying the presence of incriminating materials.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of explaining the nature and source of the sum credited. The claim of acting as a "conduit" for money transfer was not substantiated with documentary evidence, hence the addition was rightly treated as unexplained.

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 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 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 noted that the trust had not claimed the TDS and referenced a similar case where the assessee's sister was allowed TDS credit under identical facts by another Additional/JCIT. Considering the assessee is the 100% beneficiary, the Tribunal held she is entitled to the TDS credit of Rs. 71,025/- and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim.

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 found that the assessee's physical appeal was filed on 27/04/2016, which was within the prescribed 30 days. It further noted that the e-appeal on 13/06/2016 was also within the extended deadline of 15/06/2016 set by CBDT Circular No. 20 of 2016. Consequently, the appeal before the CIT(A) was not barred by limitation, and the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, remanding the matter for a decision on merits after providing a hearing opportunity.

The Tribunal noted that for unabated assessment years, additions under Section 153A require incriminating material found during search. Since the assessee did not produce evidence before lower authorities, the case is remitted to CIT(A) for verification of evidence and legal issues. For AY 2016-17, the appeal is also remitted for verification.

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 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 observed that the CIT(A) had himself re-computed a loss for AY 2018-19. It agreed with the assessee that a correct application of the percentage completion method, factoring in all direct and indirect project costs up to the completion, would result in a loss for both assessment years. The Tribunal concluded that the additions made by the Assessing Officer and partially sustained by the CIT(A) were not justified and should be deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not represent before the lower authorities, leading to ex-parte orders. The Tribunal remitted the appeals for assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16 back to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue of incriminating material. For assessment year 2016-17, the appeal was also remitted for verification of evidence.

The Tribunal held that the Assessee's application for registration under Section 12A was not belated, considering the timelines of their activities and provisional registration. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal by the Revenue. Following the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the reassessment order due to improper approval under Section 151(ii) of the Act.

The Tribunal noted that assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16 fall within the search period, while 2016-17 is the year of the search. Since the assessee did not appear before the lower authorities, the Tribunal remitted the appeals back to the CIT(A) for verification of the grounds raised, especially regarding incriminating material and other legal contentions.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not provide sufficient justification for the addition of Rs. 11.00 Lac. The assessee's explanation regarding the Rs. 2.20 Lac deposit appeared reasonable, and the lower authorities' orders lacked proper reasoning.

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 interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments held with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, following various High Court and ITAT decisions. The AO erred in disallowing the deduction.

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 noted that the assessee did not represent before the lower authorities and raised legal contentions for the first time. For assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16, the Tribunal remitted the appeals to the CIT(A) to decide the issue of incriminating material and other legal propositions. For assessment year 2016-17, the appeal was also remitted for verification.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of incriminating material unearthed during search, additions in unabated assessment years cannot be made. Since the assessee did not represent before the lower authorities, the case was remitted to the CIT(A) for verification of legal issues and merits, with a direction to provide an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation as it was issued after the expiry of the period under the old law and the amended law, including the extended period, could not be applied retrospectively. For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal found that the purchases were substantiated with documentary evidence and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax only the profit element at 2%.

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 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 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 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 had not represented themselves before the lower authorities. However, it agreed with the assessee's contention that additions under Section 153A for unabated years require incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal remitted the appeals for assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16 back to the CIT(A) for verification of incriminating materials and adjudication of legal issues.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to section 11(3) of the Act, which removed the additional year for utilizing accumulated funds, was prospective. Since the utilization occurred within the period allowed by the law at the time of accumulation (5+1 years), and even if it were the 5th year ending, the taxability would be in the subsequent year, not the current assessment year.