ITAT Mumbai Judgments — December 2025

The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) made and confirmed the addition on the grounds that the assessee failed to produce material to prove the genuineness of the LTCG exemption claim. However, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had submitted documents and acknowledgments dated 13.12.2021, but the assessment order dated 31.03.2022 did not mention these documents. The CIT(A) also failed to notice this and confirmed the addition mechanically. The Tribunal found that since the assessee had furnished necessary documents, the AO/CIT(A) should have considered them and provided an effective opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were not followed, and the impugned order suffered from illegality and perversity. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the AO for deciding it afresh after giving an effective opportunity of hearing and considering the submissions made. The assessee was directed to submit all details and take necessary steps within 60 days. The issue of whether the addition under Section 68 was valid in the absence of books of account, and the validity of the Section 148 notice, were not expressly decided but were implicitly to be considered during the de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 was issued after the concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court, rendering it invalid. For AY 2016-17, the approval for the notice was obtained from an incorrect authority as per Section 151(ii), thus vitiating the notice.

The Tribunal held that since the foundation of the penalty (the assessment order) was collapsed, the penalty also could not stand. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the subscription income is not royalty as it does not involve the transfer of a right to use copyright or imparting of information concerning industrial, commercial, or scientific knowledge. The Tribunal followed its own earlier decisions in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the penalties levied were unsustainable as the additions were not based on incriminating material found during the search. The conditions for attracting penalties under the relevant sections were not met.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the present appeal. The reasoning was based on the assessee's letter, which clearly stated that two separate appeals had been filed for the same matter due to inadvertent submission through both online and offline modes. The assessee expressed a clear intention to proceed with the offline appeal (ITA No. 6450/Mum/2025) and requested the withdrawal of the online appeal (ITA No. 6366/Mum/2025). The Tribunal accepted this request and accordingly dismissed the present appeal as withdrawn. No other issues were decided, and the operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.

The Tribunal found that the Ld. Commissioner erred by not adjudicating the merits of the assessee's appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision on the issues, after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing that the reasons provided were bonafide, plausible, and unintentional. The Tribunal observed that the valuation report from the DVO was essential for adjudication and thus remanded the case to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision after obtaining the DVO's report.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) confirmed the additions without examining the merits, solely on the ground that the assessee failed to submit evidence. To ensure natural justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity.

The Tribunal observed a fault on the Assessee's part for not updating the AO with the new email address, but also acknowledged the lack of proper adjudication due to missing facts. The case was remanded to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal observed a fault on the Assessee's part for not updating the AO with the new email address, but also acknowledged the lack of proper adjudication due to missing facts. The case was remanded to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 6% of the alleged bogus purchases. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s view, which was based on a previous ITAT decision in a similar case.

The Tribunal condoned the assessee's non-appearance and remanded both the quantum assessment and the consequential penalty proceedings back to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering the plausible reasons for non-compliance and judicial custody.

The Tribunal condoned the assessee's non-appearance and remanded both the quantum assessment and the consequential penalty proceedings back to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering the plausible reasons for non-compliance and judicial custody.

The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the original assessment order was passed by the ITO, Surat. Consequently, both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's cross-objection were dismissed, with liberty granted to the Revenue to file the appeal before the correct jurisdictional tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the AO denied the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the third party whose statement formed the basis of the addition. This violated the principle of natural justice, rendering the addition unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the subscription income is not royalty as it does not involve the transfer of a right to use copyright or imparting of information concerning industrial, commercial, or scientific knowledge. The Tribunal followed its own earlier decisions in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 was issued after the concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court, rendering it invalid. For AY 2016-17, the approval for the notice was obtained from an incorrect authority as per Section 151(ii), thus vitiating the notice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities. It found that the CIT (Exemption) erred by ignoring the assessee's adjournment request and restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction for the assessee to cooperate.

The tribunal admitted the additional ground, holding that the reassessment notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) were coram non judice and the assessments were void ab initio due to non-compliance with the faceless assessment scheme and mandatory procedures. Relying on High Court precedents, the tribunal allowed the ground and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification, keeping other grounds open.

The tribunal admitted the additional ground, holding that the reassessment notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) were coram non judice and the assessments were void ab initio due to non-compliance with the faceless assessment scheme and mandatory procedures. Relying on High Court precedents, the tribunal allowed the ground and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification, keeping other grounds open.

The tribunal admitted the additional ground, holding that the reassessment notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) were coram non judice and the assessments were void ab initio due to non-compliance with the faceless assessment scheme and mandatory procedures. Relying on High Court precedents, the tribunal allowed the ground and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification, keeping other grounds open.

The Tribunal, taking a lenient view and acknowledging a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-representation, restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with adequate opportunity. A nominal cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee for past non-cooperation, to be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund. The Tribunal clarified that this restoration does not reflect on the merits of the dispute.

The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, primarily holding that it was not maintainable as the tax effect was below Rs. 60 lakhs, as stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 dated 17.09.2024, which is applicable to pending cases. The Tribunal also noted that, on merits, the CIT(A) had correctly deleted the addition, finding that the assessee's transactions involving an interest-free loan and investment in shares were genuine and tax had been paid on the STCG.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 was issued after the concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court, rendering it invalid. For AY 2016-17, the approval for the notice was obtained from an incorrect authority as per Section 151(ii), thus vitiating the notice.

The Tribunal held that Section 80P(2)(d) allows deduction for interest income derived by a cooperative society from its investments with any other cooperative society. The cooperative banks in question were registered under the relevant Cooperative Societies Act, thus satisfying the condition.

The Tribunal held that the AO had not conducted adequate inquiries into the genuineness of the 'Listing Fees' expenditure and the applicability of various TDS sections. Therefore, the PCIT's direction to the AO to conduct further inquiries under Section 263 was deemed valid.

The Tribunal held that no penalty can be levied on additions made on an estimated basis, especially when the addition was restricted to a low percentage of alleged bogus purchases. Following previous decisions, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was deprived of natural justice by the Ld.CIT(A), who passed an ex-parte order without affording adequate opportunity for hearing. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Ld.CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the addition was sustained purely on an estimated basis and not on account of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained. The Tribunal relied on pronouncements from the Bombay High Court and a co-ordinate bench of the ITAT.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as withdrawn without considering the assessee's submission that the VSVS scheme was not opted for the quantum appeal. The Tribunal condoned the delay and remitted the appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits.

The Tribunal held that since the addition was sustained purely on an estimated basis and not on account of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained. The Tribunal relied on pronouncements from the Bombay High Court and a co-ordinate bench of the ITAT.

The Tribunal held that the claim of cancellation of the transaction cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the cancellation deed was not registered, if the assessee can substantiate it with corroborative evidence. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal noted that it was unclear if the assessment under Section 147 was completed under Section 144 and whether the assessee failed to respond to all notices. It was also highlighted that penalty under Section 271(1)(b) cannot be levied if the assessment under Section 144 is not completed. Therefore, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO, based solely on a retracted statement and unverified loose sheets without corroborative evidence, was not sustainable. The assessee had also paid consideration exceeding the stamp duty value, making the alleged additional cash payment illogical.

The Tribunal held that since the addition was sustained purely on an estimated basis and not on account of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained. The Tribunal relied on pronouncements from the Bombay High Court and a co-ordinate bench of the ITAT.

The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(vii) (as it stood prior to the amendment for inadequate consideration) was not applicable as the assessee had surrendered the old flat as consideration for the new one. For the additional area purchased, the consideration paid exceeded the stamp duty value.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide substantive proof of the genuineness of the loan transactions, relying only on ITR acknowledgments and loan confirmations. While upholding the lower authorities' findings, the Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee one more opportunity to furnish complete details.

The Tribunal held that the penalties levied were unsustainable as the additions were not based on incriminating material found during the search. The conditions for attracting penalties under the relevant sections were not met.

The Tribunal held that the penalties levied were unsustainable as the additions were not based on incriminating material found during the search. The conditions for attracting penalties under the relevant sections were not met.

The Tribunal held that the penalties levied were unsustainable as the additions were not based on incriminating material found during the search. The conditions for attracting penalties under the relevant sections were not met.

The Tribunal held that the penalties levied were unsustainable as the additions were not based on incriminating material found during the search. The conditions for attracting penalties under the relevant sections were not met.

The Tribunal held that the penalties levied were unsustainable as the additions were not based on incriminating material found during the search. The conditions for attracting penalties under the relevant sections were not met.

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 for share application money from Alpha Airport Retail Holdings Ltd. could not be sustained as the money was not received in the year under consideration and sufficient evidence of its source and genuineness was provided. Similarly, for WDFG UK Holdings Ltd., the Tribunal found that the assessee had established the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction.

The Tribunal held that there was an admitted delay in filing all three appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). It noted that an affidavit seeking condonation of delay was furnished along with Form 35 but was ignored and not considered by the Ld. CIT(A), who passed the order without considering the merits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit all three appeals back to the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee is directed to file the condonation petition again. The Ld. CIT(A) is instructed to consider the delay in accordance with law and pass a detailed order on merits after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard. The grounds raised by the assessee are considered partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that there was an admitted delay in filing all three appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). It noted that an affidavit seeking condonation of delay was furnished along with Form 35 but was ignored and not considered by the Ld. CIT(A), who passed the order without considering the merits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit all three appeals back to the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee is directed to file the condonation petition again. The Ld. CIT(A) is instructed to consider the delay in accordance with law and pass a detailed order on merits after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard. The grounds raised by the assessee are considered partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that there was an admitted delay in filing all three appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). It noted that an affidavit seeking condonation of delay was furnished along with Form 35 but was ignored and not considered by the Ld. CIT(A), who passed the order without considering the merits. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit all three appeals back to the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee is directed to file the condonation petition again. The Ld. CIT(A) is instructed to consider the delay in accordance with law and pass a detailed order on merits after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard. The grounds raised by the assessee are considered partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in rejecting the DCF method solely because projected turnover was not achieved. It was also noted that the valuer confirmed the report under oath and that the disclaimer in the report was standard. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents, including a High Court decision that overturned a contrary Tribunal ruling.