ITAT Mumbai Judgments — November 2025

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the facts in M/s. Totgars Cooperative Sale Society Ltd. (supra). It noted that in the Totgars case, the assessee was involved in marketing agricultural produce of its members in addition to providing credit facilities, and the interest income was earned on funds retained from sale proceeds which were a liability. In contrast, the assessee in the present case was exclusively engaged in the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members, accepting deposits only from members and not outsiders. The interest earned on surplus funds deposited in cooperative and commercial banks was considered part of the main and ancillary business activity of the assessee. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The Tribunal found that the grounds raised by the revenue concerning the applicability of Supreme Court judgments like Totgars, Mavilayi, and Citizen Co-operative Society were either misplaced or covered by the specific facts of the present case. Grounds 2, 3, 4, and 5 were dismissed as the CIT(A)'s findings were binding. Ground 1 was rendered infructuous. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A)'s order was legally sustainable and upheld it.

On the issue of exemption under Section 10(23G), the Tribunal held that the assessee qualifies as an infrastructure capital company, having made investments in an enterprise engaged in infrastructure facilities. The CIT(A)'s decision to allow this exemption was upheld, respectfully following the precedents of Jammu & Kashmir Bank Limited v. ACIT and DCIT v. ICICI Bank Limited. Consequently, the Revenue's grounds of appeal (ITA No. 4109/MUM/2012) concerning this issue were dismissed. Regarding the penalty appeal (ITA No. 5690/MUM/2015), since the substantial quantum additions were to be revisited based on the decision in the main appeals, the penalty matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal did not provide specific findings on the other grounds raised by the assessee concerning Section 14A, capital expenditure, sub-license fees, house property income, brokerage, legal fees, overseas taxes, and foreign exchange loss, as these were not explicitly decided in the provided extract. The operative directions were to dismiss ITA No. 4109/MUM/2012, partly allow ITA No. 3157/MUM/2012, dismiss CO No. 144/MUM/2012, and partly allow ITA No. 5690/MUM/2015 for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal addressed the issue concerning exemption under Section 10(23G). The assessee contended that it qualifies as an 'infrastructure capital company' by investing in an enterprise engaged in infrastructure facilities, citing precedents like Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. v. ACIT and DCIT v. ICICI Bank Ltd. The Tribunal, respectfully following these decisions, found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order allowing the exemption under Section 10(23G). Consequently, Ground No. 2(a) & (b) of the revenue in ITA No. 4109/Mum/2012 were dismissed, and ITA No. 4109/Mum/2012 of the revenue was dismissed. For ITA No. 5690/MUM/2015, which dealt with penalty, the Tribunal noted that since the substantial quantum additions were being dealt with in other appeals, the penalty being consequential needed to be revisited by the AO. Thus, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication based on the decisions in the main appeals. The Tribunal did not explicitly decide on all the grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No. 3157/MUM/2012, but the overall result indicates a partial allowance for the assessee.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer made additions beyond the reasons recorded for reopening, the CIT(A) had correctly applied commission rates. However, the Tribunal modified the addition by restricting it to a specified percentage of transactions and excluding intra-group transactions.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer made additions beyond the reasons recorded for reopening, the CIT(A) had correctly applied commission rates. However, the Tribunal modified the addition by restricting it to a specified percentage of transactions and excluding intra-group transactions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing appeals at both the CIT(A) and ITAT stages. The law of limitation is based on public policy and cannot be circumvented by pleas for liberal interpretation when no bonafide reasons are established.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing appeals at both the CIT(A) and ITAT stages. The law of limitation is based on public policy and cannot be circumvented by pleas for liberal interpretation when no bonafide reasons are established.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing appeals at both the CIT(A) and ITAT stages. The law of limitation is based on public policy and cannot be circumvented by pleas for liberal interpretation when no bonafide reasons are established.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing appeals at both the CIT(A) and ITAT stages. The law of limitation is based on public policy and cannot be circumvented by pleas for liberal interpretation when no bonafide reasons are established.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the appeals on the ground of inordinate delay, as the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal also noted that the issue of disallowance of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) was not properly addressed by the CIT(A) as the appeal was not admitted.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer made additions beyond the reasons recorded for reopening, the CIT(A) had correctly applied commission rates. However, the Tribunal modified the addition by restricting it to a specified percentage of transactions and excluding intra-group transactions.

The Tribunal decided the issues as follows: Regarding the Provision of SBO IT services (Bengaluru) and Provision of SBO services (Chennai), the judgment indicates that these were part of the substantial transfer pricing adjustments made by the TPO and upheld by the DRP. The assessee's grounds of appeal extensively challenged the TPO's selection of comparables, functional and risk analysis, and the rejection of its own analysis and adjustments for working capital and risk. The Tribunal's detailed findings and reasoning on these specific issues are not fully captured in the provided excerpt, but the appeal is directed against the TPO/DRP's confirmation of these adjustments. The judgment notes that the assessee's arguments regarding the nature of services and comparables were detailed. Regarding the Provision of Technical Services under the P&T division, E&P segment, the Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's argument that these services are rendered 'at-cost' under PSCs and global policy, supported by an expert opinion. The opinion highlighted that charging cost only is not conflicting with the arm's length principle under specific conditions, including identical charges to related/non-related members, absence of entrepreneurial risk for service companies, government contracts stipulating cost-only charges, and flexibility under OECD Guidelines. The Tribunal noted the DRP's reliance on previous year's directions and the need for consistency with the revenue's stand. The provided excerpt does not contain the final decision or reasoning of the Tribunal on this specific issue, only the arguments presented and the DRP's observations.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer made additions beyond the reasons recorded for reopening, the CIT(A) had correctly applied commission rates. However, the Tribunal modified the addition by restricting it to a specified percentage of transactions and excluding intra-group transactions.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer made additions beyond the reasons recorded for reopening, the CIT(A) had correctly applied commission rates. However, the Tribunal modified the addition by restricting it to a specified percentage of transactions and excluding intra-group transactions.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer made additions beyond the reasons recorded for reopening, the CIT(A) had correctly applied commission rates. However, the Tribunal modified the addition by restricting it to a specified percentage of transactions and excluding intra-group transactions.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer made additions beyond the reasons recorded for reopening, the CIT(A) had correctly applied commission rates. However, the Tribunal modified the addition by restricting it to a specified percentage of transactions and excluding intra-group transactions.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer made additions beyond the reasons recorded for reopening, the CIT(A) had correctly applied commission rates. However, the Tribunal modified the addition by restricting it to a specified percentage of transactions and excluding intra-group transactions.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer made additions beyond the reasons recorded for reopening, the CIT(A) had correctly applied commission rates. However, the Tribunal modified the addition by restricting it to a specified percentage of transactions and excluding intra-group transactions.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer made additions beyond the reasons recorded for reopening, the CIT(A) had correctly applied commission rates. However, the Tribunal modified the addition by restricting it to a specified percentage of transactions and excluding intra-group transactions.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer made additions beyond the reasons recorded for reopening, the CIT(A) had correctly applied commission rates. However, the Tribunal modified the addition by restricting it to a specified percentage of transactions and excluding intra-group transactions.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer made additions beyond the reasons recorded for reopening, the CIT(A) had correctly applied commission rates. However, the Tribunal modified the addition by restricting it to a specified percentage of transactions and excluding intra-group transactions.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer made additions beyond the reasons recorded for reopening, the CIT(A) had correctly applied commission rates. However, the Tribunal modified the addition by restricting it to a specified percentage of transactions and excluding intra-group transactions.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer made additions beyond the reasons recorded for reopening, the CIT(A) had correctly applied commission rates. However, the Tribunal modified the addition by restricting it to a specified percentage of transactions and excluding intra-group transactions.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer made additions beyond the reasons recorded for reopening, the CIT(A) had correctly applied commission rates. However, the Tribunal modified the addition by restricting it to a specified percentage of transactions and excluding intra-group transactions.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer made additions beyond the reasons recorded for reopening, the CIT(A) had correctly applied commission rates. However, the Tribunal modified the addition by restricting it to a specified percentage of transactions and excluding intra-group transactions.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer made additions beyond the reasons recorded for reopening, the CIT(A) had correctly applied commission rates. However, the Tribunal modified the addition by restricting it to a specified percentage of transactions and excluding intra-group transactions.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer made additions beyond the reasons recorded for reopening, the CIT(A) had correctly applied commission rates. However, the Tribunal modified the addition by restricting it to a specified percentage of transactions and excluding intra-group transactions.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer made additions beyond the reasons recorded for reopening, the CIT(A) had correctly applied commission rates. However, the Tribunal modified the addition by restricting it to a specified percentage of transactions and excluding intra-group transactions.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer made additions beyond the reasons recorded for reopening, the CIT(A) had correctly applied commission rates. However, the Tribunal modified the addition by restricting it to a specified percentage of transactions and excluding intra-group transactions.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer made additions beyond the reasons recorded for reopening, the CIT(A) had correctly applied commission rates. However, the Tribunal modified the addition by restricting it to a specified percentage of transactions and excluding intra-group transactions.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer made additions beyond the reasons recorded for reopening, the CIT(A) had correctly applied commission rates. However, the Tribunal modified the addition by restricting it to a specified percentage of transactions and excluding intra-group transactions.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer made additions beyond the reasons recorded for reopening, the CIT(A) had correctly applied commission rates. However, the Tribunal modified the addition by restricting it to a specified percentage of transactions and excluding intra-group transactions.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer made additions beyond the reasons recorded for reopening, the CIT(A) had correctly applied commission rates. However, the Tribunal modified the addition by restricting it to a specified percentage of transactions and excluding intra-group transactions.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer made additions beyond the reasons recorded for reopening, the CIT(A) had correctly applied commission rates. However, the Tribunal modified the addition by restricting it to a specified percentage of transactions and excluding intra-group transactions.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer made additions beyond the reasons recorded for reopening, the CIT(A) had correctly applied commission rates. However, the Tribunal modified the addition by restricting it to a specified percentage of transactions and excluding intra-group transactions.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer made additions beyond the reasons recorded for reopening, the CIT(A) had correctly applied commission rates. However, the Tribunal modified the addition by restricting it to a specified percentage of transactions and excluding intra-group transactions.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer made additions beyond the reasons recorded for reopening, the CIT(A) had correctly applied commission rates. However, the Tribunal modified the addition by restricting it to a specified percentage of transactions and excluding intra-group transactions.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer made additions beyond the reasons recorded for reopening, the CIT(A) had correctly applied commission rates. However, the Tribunal modified the addition by restricting it to a specified percentage of transactions and excluding intra-group transactions.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer made additions beyond the reasons recorded for reopening, the CIT(A) had correctly applied commission rates. However, the Tribunal modified the addition by restricting it to a specified percentage of transactions and excluding intra-group transactions.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer made additions beyond the reasons recorded for reopening, the CIT(A) had correctly applied commission rates. However, the Tribunal modified the addition by restricting it to a specified percentage of transactions and excluding intra-group transactions.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer made additions beyond the reasons recorded for reopening, the CIT(A) had correctly applied commission rates. However, the Tribunal modified the addition by restricting it to a specified percentage of transactions and excluding intra-group transactions.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer made additions beyond the reasons recorded for reopening, the CIT(A) had correctly applied commission rates. However, the Tribunal modified the addition by restricting it to a specified percentage of transactions and excluding intra-group transactions.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer made additions beyond the reasons recorded for reopening, the CIT(A) had correctly applied commission rates. However, the Tribunal modified the addition by restricting it to a specified percentage of transactions and excluding intra-group transactions.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer made additions beyond the reasons recorded for reopening, the CIT(A) had correctly applied commission rates. However, the Tribunal modified the addition by restricting it to a specified percentage of transactions and excluding intra-group transactions.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer made additions beyond the reasons recorded for reopening, the CIT(A) had correctly applied commission rates. However, the Tribunal modified the addition by restricting it to a specified percentage of transactions and excluding intra-group transactions.

The Tribunal, following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench, set aside the CIT(A)'s orders for fresh adjudication on merits. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal, following the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench, set aside the CIT(A)'s orders for fresh adjudication on merits. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the assessee qualified as an 'infrastructure capital company' and was eligible for exemption under Section 10(23G). The penalty appeal was consequential and needed to be revisited.

The Tribunal noted that the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) relied on previous year's orders, while a coordinate bench had remanded similar issues for fresh determination. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand the issue of GSA services back to the TPO for fresh benchmarking.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity to examine it, which violated Rule 46A(3) of the Income Tax Rules. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.