ITAT Mumbai Judgments — February 2026

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as it was not intentional and the assessee is interested in pursuing the case on merit. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not discussed the merits of the grounds of appeal.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's view was based on conjecture and not concrete evidence, as the Assessing Officer had conducted a thorough enquiry. The Tribunal also found that the revision was vitiated as it was influenced by an audit objection.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowance made for payments to VISA and MasterCard, finding they were for network usage and not royalty. It also allowed the assessee's claim for consequential reduction of income in AY 2018-19 to avoid double taxation due to a prior settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas scheme.

The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner's decision to reject the claim based on it not being made in the original return of income requires fresh consideration, especially in light of judgments presented by the assessee allowing fresh claims at the appellate stage under certain circumstances.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee is a successor to the merged company, it should be given an opportunity to be heard. The case was remanded to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that specific expenses like telecom charges and employee costs incurred exclusively for the Indian branch are not covered by Section 44C and are deductible under Section 37(1). It also held that interest paid by the Indian branch to overseas branches is not taxable in India for the relevant assessment year.

For assessment years 2012-13 to 2016-17, additions were made without any nexus to incriminating material found during the search and were based on re-examination of already disclosed particulars. Therefore, these additions were deleted and appeals were allowed. For assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19, due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control preventing participation, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

For assessment years 2012-13 to 2016-17, additions were made without any nexus to incriminating material found during the search and were based on re-examination of already disclosed particulars. Therefore, these additions were deleted and appeals were allowed. For assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19, due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control preventing participation, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

For assessment years 2012-13 to 2016-17, additions were made without any nexus to incriminating material found during the search and were based on re-examination of already disclosed particulars. Therefore, these additions were deleted and appeals were allowed. For assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19, due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control preventing participation, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

For assessment years 2012-13 to 2016-17, additions were made without any nexus to incriminating material found during the search and were based on re-examination of already disclosed particulars. Therefore, these additions were deleted and appeals were allowed. For assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19, due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control preventing participation, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

For assessment years 2012-13 to 2016-17, additions were made without any nexus to incriminating material found during the search and were based on re-examination of already disclosed particulars. Therefore, these additions were deleted and appeals were allowed. For assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19, due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control preventing participation, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's non-compliance was due to notices going into the spam folder and failure to file relevant documents. Considering the need for proper adjudication and substantial justice, the case was remanded to the Commissioner for fresh decision.

For assessment years 2012-13 to 2016-17, additions were made without any nexus to incriminating material found during the search and were based on re-examination of already disclosed particulars. Therefore, these additions were deleted and appeals were allowed. For assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19, due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control preventing participation, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had presented substantial documentary evidence including cash books, bank statements, and patient registers to explain the source of cash deposits. While these documents were not examined by the Assessing Officer at the assessment stage, they prima facie indicated that the deposits were from legitimate hospital receipts.

The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act were barred by limitation, as they were issued beyond the 'surviving period' as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the Rajeev Bansal case. Consequently, the reassessment orders were deemed void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot make additions on issues not covered in the reasons recorded for reopening if no addition is made on the original grounds. Following the jurisdictional High Court's precedent, the reassessment was deemed legally invalid.

The withdrawal was sought on the grounds that a similar appeal challenging the same order had already been disposed of by a co-ordinate bench. The Ld. D.R. did not refute this claim.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. Recognizing the lack of effective representation at the first appellate stage and the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in upholding additions based on seized documents without sufficient corroborative evidence and without addressing the assessee's contentions about the nature of the documents. It also noted issues with reliance on retracted statements and lack of opportunity for cross-examination.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when additions are sustained purely on an estimated basis or guesswork, without clear evidence of concealment. The Tribunal also noted defects in the penalty notice.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years (2012-13 to 2015-16), additions under section 68 and section 69D are unsustainable and are hereby deleted due to the absence of incriminating material relatable to the respective years discovered during the search. The Tribunal noted that the search action formed the foundation for these proceedings and that in the case of completed or unabated assessments, no addition can be sustained unless founded on incriminating material discovered during the search. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal held that even on merits, the assessee had discharged the primary onus under section 68, and in the absence of cogent evidence demonstrating the introduction of unaccounted money, the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- under section 68 and any corresponding additions under section 69D are deleted. The reasoning relied on the principle that retracted statements require corroboration and that additions cannot be sustained solely on general statements or loose papers without linking evidence. The Tribunal followed the decisions of its Co-ordinate Benches in similar group cases, citing Vasupujya Filaments and Chandrika Mansukhlal Dodhia, emphasizing that for unabated years, the additions must be based on incriminating material found during the search. The stay applications were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when additions are sustained purely on an estimated basis or guesswork, without clear evidence of concealment. The Tribunal also noted defects in the penalty notice.

The Tribunal, considering the interest of justice, decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to be diligent in providing explanations and substantiating claims.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, stating that the assessee had shown reasonable cause. The Tribunal noted that the First Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution without deciding the merits, which is against the statutory mandate. The assessee was an individual who deserved a fair opportunity to contest substantial additions.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years (2012-13 to 2015-16), additions under section 68 and section 69D are unsustainable and are hereby deleted due to the absence of incriminating material relatable to the respective years discovered during the search. The Tribunal noted that the search action formed the foundation for these proceedings and that in the case of completed or unabated assessments, no addition can be sustained unless founded on incriminating material discovered during the search. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal held that even on merits, the assessee had discharged the primary onus under section 68, and in the absence of cogent evidence demonstrating the introduction of unaccounted money, the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- under section 68 and any corresponding additions under section 69D are deleted. The reasoning relied on the principle that retracted statements require corroboration and that additions cannot be sustained solely on general statements or loose papers without linking evidence. The Tribunal followed the decisions of its Co-ordinate Benches in similar group cases, citing Vasupujya Filaments and Chandrika Mansukhlal Dodhia, emphasizing that for unabated years, the additions must be based on incriminating material found during the search. The stay applications were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee pursuing alternative remedies. Regarding exemption under Section 10(23C)(vi), the Tribunal directed the AO to examine the issue afresh. The Tribunal also noted that the issue of condonation of delay for Form-10B is pending before the High Court.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee remained non-compliant before the CIT(A) on several occasions. However, since there was no decision on merits by the CIT(A) and the appeal was dismissed in limine, the Tribunal found it appropriate to restore the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years (2012-13 to 2015-16), additions under section 68 and section 69D are unsustainable and are hereby deleted due to the absence of incriminating material relatable to the respective years discovered during the search. The Tribunal noted that the search action formed the foundation for these proceedings and that in the case of completed or unabated assessments, no addition can be sustained unless founded on incriminating material discovered during the search. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal held that even on merits, the assessee had discharged the primary onus under section 68, and in the absence of cogent evidence demonstrating the introduction of unaccounted money, the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- under section 68 and any corresponding additions under section 69D are deleted. The reasoning relied on the principle that retracted statements require corroboration and that additions cannot be sustained solely on general statements or loose papers without linking evidence. The Tribunal followed the decisions of its Co-ordinate Benches in similar group cases, citing Vasupujya Filaments and Chandrika Mansukhlal Dodhia, emphasizing that for unabated years, the additions must be based on incriminating material found during the search. The stay applications were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities made additions in the absence of proper reply and evidence. Considering the principle of natural justice, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) to decide all issues on merit.

The Tribunal noted that the error in mentioning the sub-clause was a technical one, and similar situations have been condoned by coordinate benches and addressed by CBDT circulars. The Commissioner's rejection was based on a hyper-technical approach and was not in line with established precedents.

The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act and the consequential assessment orders were null and void due to being time-barred. Consequently, the legal grounds of appeal were allowed.

The Tribunal held that Section 80P(4) applies to co-operative banks claiming deduction, not to co-operative societies earning interest from them. Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal allowed the deduction.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence that was not filed before the lower authorities, citing Rule 29 of the Income Appellate Tribunal Rules. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, considering the additional evidence and granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed against a deceased person is a nullity. It was noted that the legal heirs are not obligated to intimate the death of the assessee to the revenue. On merits, it was found that the compensation received for surrender of tenancy was invested in a new residential property, making the assessee eligible for deduction under Section 54F.

The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously quashed the revision order passed under Section 263 on both legal and merits grounds. Since the revision order was set aside, the subsequent assessment order passed under Section 147/263/144B lacked legal basis. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely on the basis of loose papers and coded entries found from a third party without corroborative evidence. The AO failed to establish a direct link between the assessee and the alleged on-money payment.

The Tribunal held that the belatedly filed return was not necessarily invalid and the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds without adjudicating on merits. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation regarding non-receipt of notices due to email inactivity, although not fully substantiated with evidence at the CIT(A) level, warranted a fresh look.

The Tribunal held that the receipts for IT services and software license charges did not constitute income as FTS or Royalty, relying on Supreme Court and co-ordinate bench decisions. It also noted that the issue of BSS charges as FTS was covered in favour of the assessee by previous years' orders.

The Tribunal observed the assessee's persistent non-compliance and evasive approach towards tax compliances. Consequently, in the absence of any compliance to rectify the defects, the Tribunal held the appeal to be not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years (2012-13 to 2015-16), additions under section 68 and section 69D are unsustainable and are hereby deleted due to the absence of incriminating material relatable to the respective years discovered during the search. The Tribunal noted that the search action formed the foundation for these proceedings and that in the case of completed or unabated assessments, no addition can be sustained unless founded on incriminating material discovered during the search. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal held that even on merits, the assessee had discharged the primary onus under section 68, and in the absence of cogent evidence demonstrating the introduction of unaccounted money, the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- under section 68 and any corresponding additions under section 69D are deleted. The reasoning relied on the principle that retracted statements require corroboration and that additions cannot be sustained solely on general statements or loose papers without linking evidence. The Tribunal followed the decisions of its Co-ordinate Benches in similar group cases, citing Vasupujya Filaments and Chandrika Mansukhlal Dodhia, emphasizing that for unabated years, the additions must be based on incriminating material found during the search. The stay applications were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act and the consequential assessment orders were null and void due to being time-barred. Consequently, the legal grounds of appeal were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the adjustment made by the CPC was unsustainable as it was made without a show cause notice. Furthermore, a Hon'ble High Court had quashed the intimation containing this ICDS adjustment. Therefore, the consequential addition made in the assessment order under Section 143(3) must be deleted.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's persistent non-compliance and the ex-parte orders passed against him. However, considering the assessee's medical and financial difficulties, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's persistent non-compliance and the ex-parte orders passed against him. However, considering the assessee's medical and financial difficulties, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's plea of ill health and business loss that prevented effective representation. Considering the situation and the fact that the matter was not adjudicated on merits, the appeals were set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, allowing one more opportunity to the assessee, subject to a cost payment.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities had not properly considered the cash flow statement produced by the assessee and had not conducted necessary verification regarding the cash balance. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for the transactions, which were conducted through banking channels and a recognized stock exchange. The revenue failed to provide specific evidence linking the assessee to price manipulation.

The Tribunal held that Section 41(1) requires cessation of liability, which was not established during the year under consideration. The fact that the waiver was offered to tax in a subsequent year indicated that the liability had not ceased in the year under appeal.

The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were based on mere presumptions and unauthenticated information, lacking cogent evidence. The denial of cross-examination to the assessee also violated principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were based on mere presumptions and unauthenticated information, lacking cogent evidence. The denial of cross-examination to the assessee also violated principles of natural justice.