ITAT Mumbai Judgments — January 2026

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the receipts as sale proceeds from identified customers, supported by sale bills and other documentary evidence. The mere fact that funds were routed through a cooperative society did not make it the source of funds.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the receipts as sale proceeds from identified customers, supported by sale bills and other documentary evidence. The mere fact that funds were routed through a cooperative society did not make it the source of funds.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the receipts as sale proceeds from identified customers, supported by sale bills and other documentary evidence. The mere fact that funds were routed through a cooperative society did not make it the source of funds.

The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order as the assessee would be provided with an opportunity to present necessary submissions and documentation before the AO during the denovo assessment proceedings.

The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal due to a 5-year delay in filing, finding no sufficient cause. The Tribunal, in this case, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the law of limitation is based on public policy and that a mere assertion of the delay not being intentional is not a sufficient cause. The Tribunal cited several Supreme Court judgments to support the strict application of limitation periods.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowance of branding expenses as the assessee had substantiated the expenditure. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the legal fees as revenue expenditure and to accept the cash system of accounting, following previous ITAT rulings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was levied for a venial breach of notice, which did not impact the finalization of the assessment as no incriminating material was found. Relying on various judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Steel Ltd., the Tribunal found that penalties should not be imposed for technical or venial breaches when there is no willful defiance of law. Therefore, the penalty was deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had confirmed additions without discussing the assessee's detailed submissions and relied-upon precedents, treating them as non-speaking orders and disregarding evidence. Similar issues regarding sundry creditors were previously decided favorably for the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowance of branding expenses as the assessee had substantiated the expenditure. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the legal fees as revenue expenditure and to accept the cash system of accounting, following previous ITAT rulings.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to appear for the hearing and did not provide any supporting documents. The assessee claimed the interest as a capital receipt but did not offer it as income, and the explanation provided was not substantiated. The Tribunal relied on various judicial precedents, including Supreme Court judgments, to hold that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars and concealed income.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was levied for a venial breach of notice, which did not impact the finalization of the assessment as no incriminating material was found. Relying on various judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Steel Ltd., the Tribunal found that penalties should not be imposed for technical or venial breaches when there is no willful defiance of law. Therefore, the penalty was deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowance of branding expenses as the assessee had substantiated the expenditure. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the legal fees as revenue expenditure and to accept the cash system of accounting, following previous ITAT rulings.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear or file any submissions before the Assessing Officer, CIT(A), or the Tribunal. Given the lack of response and evidence, the Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) requires no interference.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowance of branding expenses as the assessee had substantiated the expenditure. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the legal fees as revenue expenditure and to accept the cash system of accounting, following previous ITAT rulings.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was barred by limitation as it was issued after the prescribed period. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowance of branding expenses as the assessee had substantiated the expenditure. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the legal fees as revenue expenditure and to accept the cash system of accounting, following previous ITAT rulings.

The Tribunal held that a liberal approach to condoning delay cannot be used to defeat the law of limitation. Following Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal found no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay and confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus under Section 68 by providing comprehensive documentary evidence for the unsecured loans, including confirmations, financial statements, and bank records. The repayment of loans was also undisputed. The Tribunal found that the AO failed to provide cogent evidence to rebut the assessee's submissions, and the reliance on investigation inputs and non-service of notices was insufficient.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on the first ground, quashing the reassessment notice. The Tribunal noted that the first notice under section 148 was issued on 29.06.2021, and the order under section 148A(d) was passed on 29.07.2022. Since more than three years had elapsed from the end of AY 2017-18, according to section 151(ii) of the Act, the specified authority to grant sanction for issuing the notice should have been the Pr.CCIT/CCIT, not the Pr.CIT. The Tribunal held that the sanction was not accorded by the prescribed specified authority, making the notice under section 148 invalid and ab initio void. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed. As the reassessment notice was quashed, the grounds relating to the merits of the additions were rendered academic and not adjudicated upon. The operative direction was to quash the notice and the reassessment order.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear for hearings and did not provide proper explanations or supporting evidence for the grounds of appeal. Citing various Supreme Court and High Court precedents, the Tribunal held that the dismissal of an appeal due to non-prosecution is an inherent power of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that a liberal approach to condoning delay cannot be used to defeat the law of limitation. Following Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal found no sufficient cause to condone the inordinate delay and confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was levied for a venial breach of notice, which did not impact the finalization of the assessment as no incriminating material was found. Relying on various judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Steel Ltd., the Tribunal found that penalties should not be imposed for technical or venial breaches when there is no willful defiance of law. Therefore, the penalty was deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal, following the established legal position affirmed by the Bombay High Court, held that receipts from the sale of carbon credits are capital in nature and not chargeable to tax. The Court noted that carbon credits arise from environmental initiatives and regulatory incentives, not business operations.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals due to an inordinate delay in filing and lack of sufficient cause. Furthermore, the assessee failed to appear before the lower authorities and the Tribunal, and did not disprove the genuineness of the unsecured loans.

The Tribunal held that the denial of TDS credit was an apparent mistake. Once tax is deducted at source and reflected in Form 26AS, credit cannot be withheld due to perceived mismatches in transaction values, especially when the assessee has disclosed the transactions and claimed any resultant capital loss.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals due to an inordinate delay in filing and lack of sufficient cause. Furthermore, the assessee failed to appear before the lower authorities and the Tribunal, and did not disprove the genuineness of the unsecured loans.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeals could not be condoned due to lack of sufficient cause and the assessee's negligence. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the additions were justified as the assessee failed to provide proper explanations and evidence.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10AB was condonable as it was based on a bona fide cause and the assessee was actively taking steps to amend the trust deed to address the CIT(E)'s concerns. The Tribunal also noted that the rejection of the 80G approval was consequential to the rejection of the 12AB registration.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals due to an inordinate delay in filing and lack of sufficient cause. Furthermore, the assessee failed to appear before the lower authorities and the Tribunal, and did not disprove the genuineness of the unsecured loans.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order rejecting registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G cannot be sustained. The delay in filing Form No. 10AB deserves to be condoned, and the application for registration under Section 12AB requires to be examined afresh on merits after considering the amended objects of the trust.

The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings under Section 271D do not survive if the reassessment proceedings are quashed or held to be invalid. Relying on Supreme Court and coordinate bench decisions, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had confirmed additions without discussing the assessee's detailed submissions and relied-upon precedents, treating them as non-speaking orders and disregarding evidence. Similar issues regarding sundry creditors were previously decided favorably for the assessee.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals due to an inordinate delay in filing and lack of sufficient cause. Furthermore, the assessee failed to appear before the lower authorities and the Tribunal, and did not disprove the genuineness of the unsecured loans.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear for the hearing despite notices and also failed to rectify defects in the appeal filing, including not signing Form 36 and the Grounds of Appeal. The appellate order was also found to pertain to a different entity.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was unsustainable because the original addition forming the basis for penalty initiation was deleted, and the sustained amount was disclosed in the return. The penalty order was also found to be mechanically passed without proper satisfaction.

The Tribunal admitted the additional documents as vital evidence. Due to the admission of new evidence, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter back to the CIT(A) for factual verification and fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest expenditure was unsustainable. While the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance due to the alleged lack of documentation proving the nexus between borrowed funds and interest-earning loans, the Tribunal found that the additional evidence submitted, including confirmations and ledger accounts, established a proximate nexus. The Tribunal also noted that the interest income was earned and taxed.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the cash-in-hand as per the books of group entities exceeded the cash found, and it was common practice for such cash to be kept with key persons for security. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) relied on summaries without book-level verification and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for limited verification of cash books.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee's submissions were not fully considered by the AO and the CIT(A). Granting an opportunity for a fair hearing, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and without properly dealing with the evidence submitted. The assessee was also denied the opportunity to cross-examine individuals whose statements were relied upon by the AO. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed a cash flow statement for the first time before it, which was not provided to the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for examination of the additional evidence and fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings for AY 2003-04 were indeed time-barred. It found that the earlier ITAT order did not contain a specific finding or direction to reassess AY 2003-04, and Section 150(1) could not override the limitation period under Section 149.

The Tribunal held that the revenue authorities failed to conclusively prove the alleged transaction of cash received by the assessee. The assessee had requested the copy of the document used against him and the cross-examination of the concerned persons, which was made on 12.03.2022, before the assessment was completed on 27.03.2022. The Tribunal found that the denial of cross-examination grossly contravened the scheme of the Act. Furthermore, the relevant documents were first shown to the assessee by extracting them in the assessment order itself. The Tribunal noted that no independent inquiries were made by the AO to establish the veracity of the incriminating material. The Tribunal concluded that the actions of the revenue authorities vitiated the entire proceedings, were violative of the principle of natural justice, and failed to conclusively prove the alleged transaction. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was struck down. The issue regarding the validity of the notice under section 148 was rendered academic as the substantive addition was directed to be deleted. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the merits of the case due to the assessee's alleged non-compliance, violating the principles of natural justice as the assessee was not heard. The tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's legal grounds concerning the invalidity of the reassessment notice due to lack of proper approval from a competent authority (Pr. CCIT or CCIT instead of Pr. CIT) and the fact that the escaped income was less than Rs. 50 lakhs, which falls under section 149(1)(b). The notice issued under section 148 was deemed invalid, making the subsequent assessment order bad in law.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated against a non-existent company, whose name was struck off before the issuance of the notice, are void ab initio and without jurisdiction. The notice under section 148 to a non-existent entity is illegal and bad in law.

The Tribunal admitted the additional documents as vital evidence. Due to the admission of new evidence, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter back to the CIT(A) for factual verification and fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that payments to non-residents from the US and Canada did not qualify as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under the respective DTAAs as the technology was not 'made available'. However, payments to the non-resident from Thailand were considered FTS under the Indian Income Tax Act, as the India-Thailand DTAA lacked a specific provision for FTS, leading to their disallowance.

The Tribunal noted that in previous assessment years, for similar bogus purchases from the same parties, the AO had only taxed the profit margin (3%) and not the entire purchase amount, due to available sales demonstrating stock availability. Following the principle of consistency, the Tribunal held that the same approach should be applied.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition as the assessee denied any knowledge of Shivpal Vora and provided documentary evidence showing no such transactions. The Assessing Officer failed to provide documentary evidence connecting the assessee with the alleged transactions.