ITAT Mumbai Judgments — February 2026

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, noting it was filed after the lower authorities' orders because the relevant events occurred subsequently. The Tribunal observed that the AO did not examine a key witness, Sumitradevi Chaudhary, and the lower authorities relied solely on seized documents. Consequently, the issue was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to examine the assessee's claim for beneficial tax rate under the India-Germany tax treaty. The AO also incorrectly allowed relief under Section 91, which is not applicable to non-residents with Indian-sourced income.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice, though dated March 31, 2021, was dispatched on April 1, 2021. Therefore, it was governed by the amended procedure under Section 148A, which was not followed. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the additions were not sustainable as the AO failed to provide incriminating documents, share relevant materials, and offer an opportunity for cross-examination. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions of coordinate benches on similar facts.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice, though dated 31/03/2021, was dispatched on 01/04/2021. Therefore, it was governed by the amended procedure under Section 148A, which was not followed, rendering the assessment order bad in law.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions. It held that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that contract notes, which included brokerage, VAT, and other charges, were provided by the broker and explained the difference. These charges were in addition to the transaction value, and the NSEL data did not contain these details.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the CIT(A) because notices were not received on the provided email address. Due to this lack of effective representation and reasonable cause, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, providing one more opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to examine the assessee's claim for beneficial tax rate under the India-Germany tax treaty. The AO also incorrectly allowed relief under Section 91, which is not applicable to non-residents with Indian-sourced income.

The Tribunal held that the fabrication charges received by the assessee are not taxable as FTS in India. The Tribunal found that the services rendered did not fall under the definition of FTS as per the DTAA and relied on its own previous decisions in the assessee's case.

The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of third-party information without corroboration and without providing the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination are unsustainable. The reliance on seized electronic data and statements from third parties, without confronting the assessee or allowing rebuttal, constitutes a breach of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of third-party information and statements, without providing the assessee with an opportunity to cross-examine the deponents and without corroborative evidence, violate the principles of natural justice. Relying on prior decisions with identical facts, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the impugned additions.

The Tribunal found that the impugned order was based on a technicality without addressing the substantive issues of the trust's charitable objects and genuineness of activities. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) has the power to condone delays if sufficient cause is shown. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the jurisdiction of an ITAT Bench is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer who passed the order. Since the Assessing Officer was situated in Nashik, the appeals should have been filed before the Pune Bench, not the Mumbai Bench.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were valid as the AO had jurisdiction and sufficient tangible material. Regarding the addition, the Tribunal restricted the addition to the net short-term capital gains of INR 1,35,054/- as against the AO's addition of INR 17,64,635/-, stating that the net short-term capital gains are to be brought to tax.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention regarding the double taxation of the INR 2,00,000 donation amount. It was held that the assessee mistakenly failed to reduce the business income downwards by INR 2,00,000 in the revised return after surrendering the Section 80GGC deduction.

The Tribunal deleted the additions made by the AO on merits, following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal also quashed the Section 148 notice for AY 2013-14 due to invalid sanction, allowing the assessee's appeal on this ground.

The tribunal held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, substantial justice should be preferred. The delay in filing the appeals was considered not intentional or contumacious.

The tribunal held that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, substantial justice should be preferred. The delay in filing the appeals was considered not intentional or contumacious.

The Tribunal deleted the additions made by the AO on merits, following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal also quashed the Section 148 notice for AY 2013-14 due to invalid sanction, allowing the assessee's appeal on this ground.

The Tribunal held that a co-operative society is eligible to claim deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income derived from investments in another co-operative society, even after the insertion of Section 80P(4). The CIT(A) erred in upholding the CPC's disallowance as the relevant judicial pronouncements favored the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the Assessing Officer was defective as it used 'OR' between the two limbs of Section 271(1)(c), failing to specify the exact charge. Following jurisdictional High Court judgments, the Tribunal deleted the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the additions were not sustainable as the AO failed to provide incriminating documents, share relevant materials, and offer an opportunity for cross-examination. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions of coordinate benches on similar facts.

The Tribunal noted that similar issues have been decided by multiple benches in favor of the assessee, relying on decisions that held the amendments to Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) are curative and retrospective. The Tribunal found that the difference between the stated consideration and the stamp duty valuation was 4.63%, which is below the 10% tolerance limit. Therefore, Section 50C of the Act was held to have no application.

The Tribunal held that additions made solely on third-party information without further scrutiny and denying the opportunity for cross-examination are bad in law. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned additions.

The Tribunal held that since the order under Section 148A(d) and notice under Section 148 were issued after the expiry of three years from the end of AY 2017-18, approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (as per Section 151(ii) of the new regime) was required, not just the Principal Commissioner. The lack of proper approval affected the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued under section 148 on 30.07.2022 for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation, as the six-year period expired on 31.03.2022. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Rajeev Bansal and subsequent High Court decisions. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the grounds raised by the Revenue were already adjudicated in favour of the assessee in the assessee's own case for AY 2009-10. Therefore, the decision for AY 2009-10 squarely covered the issues in the present appeal.

The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of third-party information, without providing the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination and without corroborating evidence, are not sustainable. The principles of natural justice were breached.

The Tribunal noted that the AO's additions were primarily based on third-party statements and documents found during a search unrelated to the assessee. Crucially, the AO failed to provide the assessee with the incriminating material or offer an opportunity to cross-examine the individuals whose statements were used against the assessee, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Relying on precedent, the Tribunal found these additions unsustainable.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, noting that the events occurred after the lower authorities' orders and had a bearing on the issue. It was observed that the Assessing Officer had not examined Sumitradevi Chaudhary, despite her affidavit. The Tribunal refrained from making observations on the merits of the case.

The Departmental Representative sought to withdraw the appeal, citing a letter from the PCIT stating that the tax effect was below the monetary threshold for filing appeals as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground, finding that the assessee's declared income exceeded the threshold, and the notice was indeed issued by an officer without jurisdiction. Following the Bombay High Court's decision in Ashok Devichand Jain, the Tribunal quashed the notice and consequently the assessment order.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground, finding that the assessee's declared income exceeded the threshold, and the notice was indeed issued by an officer without jurisdiction. Following the Bombay High Court's decision in Ashok Devichand Jain, the Tribunal quashed the notice and consequently the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of third-party statements and documents, without independent corroborative material and without affording the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the deponents, are unsustainable. The Tribunal emphasized that failure to provide such an opportunity is a breach of natural justice and renders the assessment order null and void.

The Tribunal held that the addition was based solely on third-party information without proper corroboration, seizure of cash, or examination of the assessee's records. The Tribunal also noted the failure to provide an opportunity for cross-examination, breaching principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the addition was based solely on third-party information without proper corroboration, seizure of cash, or examination of the assessee's records. The Tribunal also noted the failure to provide an opportunity for cross-examination, breaching principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to present its case. The impugned ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for de novo adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the approval for the reassessment notice and order under Section 148A(d) was obtained from the incorrect authority, as it was issued after the expiry of three years from the end of AY 2017-2018. This non-compliance with Section 151(ii) of the Act vitiated the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction.

The Tribunal deleted the additions made by the AO on merits, following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case. The Tribunal also quashed the Section 148 notice for AY 2013-14 due to invalid sanction, allowing the assessee's appeal on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the additions were not sustainable as they were based solely on third-party evidence and statements without sufficient corroboration and without providing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the deponents, thus violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of third-party information, without providing the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination and without corroborating evidence, are not sustainable. The principles of natural justice were breached.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned from investments made by a cooperative society in commercial banks, as a statutory requirement for prudent investment of surplus funds, is an integral part of its banking business and eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal relied on previous decisions of coordinate benches.

The Tribunal held that the additions were not sustainable as the AO failed to provide incriminating documents, share relevant materials, and offer an opportunity for cross-examination. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions of coordinate benches on similar facts.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeals were dismissed by the First Appellate Authority solely on the grounds of delay. The assessee attributed the delay to their erstwhile authorized representative's mishandling of the case. The Tribunal opined that the interest of justice would be better served by allowing the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeals were dismissed by the First Appellate Authority solely on the grounds of delay. The assessee attributed the delay to their erstwhile authorized representative's mishandling of the case. The Tribunal opined that the interest of justice would be better served by allowing the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had a significant cash balance of Rs. 8,73,940/- on the day demonetization was announced. The bank also issued a certificate confirming deposits made in old currency notes. The AO's claim that the assessee accepted old SBN currency after the announcement was not substantiated with documentary evidence. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the disputed amount was part of the available cash in hand and deposited within the permissible timeline.

The Tribunal held that the appeals did not raise any substantial question of law. It found that the lower authorities failed to discharge the basic onus of proving the transactions were not genuine, relying on the assessee's documentary evidence and the fact that SEBI had not passed adverse orders against the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeals were dismissed by the First Appellate Authority solely on the grounds of delay. The assessee attributed the delay to their erstwhile authorized representative's mishandling of the case. The Tribunal opined that the interest of justice would be better served by allowing the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that the lands were indeed stock-in-trade. However, due to a lack of effective representation and opportunity before the lower authorities, the matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeals were dismissed by the First Appellate Authority solely on the grounds of delay. The assessee attributed the delay to their erstwhile authorized representative's mishandling of the case. The Tribunal opined that the interest of justice would be better served by allowing the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay.