ITAT Mumbai Judgments — February 2026

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.

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 found the AO's addition to be based on insufficient and unauthenticated information, lacking evidence of foreign account ownership or transactions. The estimation of income was deemed arbitrary, and the AO's failure to provide relied-upon material and deny cross-examination constituted a violation of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the sanction for issuing the notice under section 148 and the order under section 148A(d) were granted by an incompetent authority, as the period of three years from the end of the assessment year had expired. Relying on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Alag Property Construction Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal found that the sanction rendered the reassessment proceedings void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the source of the loan obtained from Shri Anand P. Nair, as the transaction was routed through banking channels, the creditor's identity was undisputed, and their creditworthiness was established by income disclosed to the Settlement Commission. The Tribunal also referred to a coordinate bench decision in Passon Realtech Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT.

The Tribunal held that passing an assessment order in the name of a non-existent entity, even if the AO was aware of the amalgamation, renders the order null and void. The Tribunal distinguished cases relied upon by the revenue where facts differed, particularly concerning suppression of information by the assessee.

The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court held that the sanction for reopening was improper, as it should have been under Section 151(ii) and not Section 151(i) of the Act. Consequently, the reopening notice and the assessment order were deemed invalid and quashed.

The CIT(A) held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. The CIT(A) noted that the dispute between the parties and the investor's lack of cooperation did not negate the evidence available, including documents from public domains like ROC. The CIT(A) also found that the AO had not conducted adequate inquiries to disprove the transaction. However, the Tribunal found that some of the evidence presented by the assessee, particularly MOUs, were not public domain documents and were introduced for the first time before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that a co-developer is included within the definition of 'Developer' for the purpose of section 80-IAB. It also found that the assessee's arrangement for operation and maintenance of warehouses constituted a valid transfer under the second proviso to section 80-IAB(2), allowing the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the definition of 'Developer' under the SEZ Act, which is incorporated into Section 80-IAB, expressly includes a 'Co-Developer'. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the difference between the sale consideration and stamp duty valuation was within the 10% tolerance limit. Following a co-ordinate bench decision, the Tribunal ruled that amendments enhancing the tolerance limit are curative and retrospective.

The Tribunal held that the definition of 'Developer' under the SEZ Act, which is incorporated into Section 80-IAB, expressly includes a 'Co-Developer'. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment was obtained from the wrong authority (PCIT instead of PCCIT/CCIT) as per Section 151(ii) of the Act, rendering the order and notice invalid. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings were also vitiated.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal in limine as not maintainable due to low tax effect. The preliminary objection raised by the assessee (though not argued by them) stated that the tax effect was Rs. 54,66,284/-, which is below the monetary limit of Rs. 60,00,000/- prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 09/2024 for filing appeals before the Tribunal. The learned Departmental Representative conceded that the tax effect was below the threshold and the case did not fall within any exceptions mentioned in CBDT Circular No. 5/2024. Therefore, without adjudicating on the merits of the grounds of appeal, the Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable. Liberty was granted to the Revenue to move an appropriate application if the case was subsequently found to fall within the exceptions.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to demonstrate that the assessment order was erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had conducted a proper inquiry and accepted the assessee's explanations and documentation regarding expenses, depreciation, share capital, and creditors.

The Tribunal held that since the findings of the search action in the Podar Group, which was the sole basis for the addition, were overruled by a coordinate bench of the ITAT, the corresponding addition in the assessee's case could not be upheld. No new facts were presented to rebut the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal held that the development fee collected by the assessee trust was a voluntary contribution and formed part of the corpus, eligible for exemption under Section 11(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The AO's assumption of violation of the Prohibition of Capitation Fee Act was found to be incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the development fee collected by the assessee trust was a voluntary contribution and formed part of the corpus, eligible for exemption under Section 11(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The AO's assumption of violation of the Prohibition of Capitation Fee Act was found to be incorrect.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A is attracted only when there is income that does not form part of total income. The existence of exempt income is a prerequisite for invoking Section 14A. Reliance was placed on High Court decisions that held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot be made in the absence of exempt income, and amendments to Section 14A are prospective.

The Tribunal held that passing an assessment order in the name of a non-existent entity, even if the AO was aware of the amalgamation, renders the order null and void. The Tribunal distinguished cases relied upon by the revenue where facts differed, particularly concerning suppression of information by the assessee.

The Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the disallowance under Section 14A to the amount of exempt income, following a High Court decision. Regarding capital gains, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for de novo adjudication after examining the submitted documents, setting aside the impugned order on this ground.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to grant TDS credit after necessary verification. It noted that the CIT(A) did not grant outright credit but directed it after verification of claims and evidence, including indemnity bonds. The Tribunal found no infirmity in this approach, as it required verification before credit issuance.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to establish the genuineness of the impugned purchases as bogus through any independent inquiry or proper verification. The AO solely relied on the Investigation Wing's report without conducting cross-examination or adducing corroborative evidence. The assessee had provided purchase invoices, sales invoices, and bank statements, which substantiated the genuineness of the transactions. The CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition.

The Tribunal held that the issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act is a mandatory requirement and not a procedural irregularity that can be waived. The non-issuance of this notice, even with the assessee's participation and belated filing of return, vitiates the entire reassessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the issuance of notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act is a mandatory requirement and not a procedural irregularity that can be waived. The non-issuance of this notice, even with the assessee's participation and belated filing of return, vitiates the entire reassessment proceedings.

The Tribunal noted that the substantive addition made to the assessee's brother, who jointly purchased a shop, was deleted by the First Appellate Authority. Since the basis for the protective addition was the same as the deleted substantive addition, and there was insufficient corroborative evidence against the assessee, the protective addition could not survive.

The Tribunal upheld the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the AO's disallowance was arbitrary and ad-hoc. The assessee had provided extensive documentation, and the AO had not identified any specific defect or non-genuine expenditure. The burden is on the Revenue to demonstrate defects in claimed expenses.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the deduction, finding that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the donation. The trustee's statement confirmed the modus operandi of returning donations in cash, making the assessee's claim unsubstantiated.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect involved in the appeal was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT circulars. While the Revenue argued that the case falls under an exception related to accommodation entries, the Tribunal found that the circumstances did not warrant invoking the exception for serious tax evasion. The CIT(A)'s deletion of the Rs. 13,60,000/- addition to prevent double taxation was upheld.

The Tribunal restored the issues related to loans from Arvind T. Shah and Arihant Corporation to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, considering additional evidence. The Tribunal also directed that unabsorbed depreciation should be allowed as per law.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals ex-parte without a finding on merits. In the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the lack of findings on merits by the AO and the assessee's submission of additional evidence and seriousness in prosecuting the matter, the tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the AO correctly applied Section 14A read with Rule 8D, as the assessee's infrastructure and management were utilized for investment activities. The reliance on own funds versus borrowed funds was deemed irrelevant for the disallowance of administrative and indirect expenses.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to consider additional evidence, including a sale agreement, which was crucial for adjudicating the issue of sale consideration and capital gains. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeals were filed with a delay, which was condoned. For AY 2018-19, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. For AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed orders ex-parte without giving adequate opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeals were filed with a delay, which was condoned. For AY 2018-19, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. For AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed orders ex-parte without giving adequate opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeals were filed with a delay, which was condoned. For AY 2018-19, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. For AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed orders ex-parte without giving adequate opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matters were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated against a deceased person without proper substitution of legal heirs are void ab initio and lack jurisdictional validity. Consequently, the addition to income and consequential penalties were quashed.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated against a deceased person without proper substitution of legal heirs are void ab initio and lack jurisdictional validity. Consequently, the addition to income and consequential penalties were quashed.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated against a deceased person without proper substitution of legal heirs are void ab initio and lack jurisdictional validity. Consequently, the addition to income and consequential penalties were quashed.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated against a deceased person without proper substitution of legal heirs are void ab initio and lack jurisdictional validity. Consequently, the addition to income and consequential penalties were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the payment of EIS to the Originator does not attract TDS under Section 194LBC as the Originator was not an 'investor' in the securitisation trust. Therefore, the assessee was not liable to deduct tax at source.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the claims and passing a non-speaking order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the claims and passing a non-speaking order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's reasons for delay were bona fide and supported by circumstances, including international travel and unavoidable domestic exigencies. It condoned the delay, emphasizing that justice-oriented approaches should prevail over technicalities, and restored the issue of capital gains computation to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of cash deposits was unjustified as they were explained as sales proceeds, and taxing them would lead to double taxation. Regarding alleged bogus purchases, the AO conflated advances with purchases, leading to inflated additions which were correctly appreciated and deleted by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. The Tribunal further held that the assessee was entitled to the full deduction of interest expenditure under Section 57 of the Income Tax Act, as a nexus between the borrowing and income from other sources was established.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. The Tribunal further held that the assessee was entitled to the full deduction of interest expenditure under Section 57 of the Income Tax Act, as a nexus between the borrowing and income from other sources was established.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeals were not maintainable due to low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. The Tribunal further held that the assessee was entitled to the full deduction of interest expenditure under Section 57 of the Income Tax Act, as a nexus between the borrowing and income from other sources was established.