ITAT Mumbai Judgments — April 2026

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient and substantiated reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeals.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. The CIT(A) found the assessee's explanations satisfactory, especially considering similar issues for AY 2015-16 were decided in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to justify the inordinate delay in filing the appeals.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party statements without an opportunity for cross-examination violate principles of natural justice. Following its own precedents in similar cases involving the same builder, the Tribunal found the addition to be bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by passing an ex-parte order without affording an adequate opportunity to the assessee. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that if the payment under the DTVSV Scheme is not made, the declaration is to be treated as never made as per Section 4(6) of the Act. The appeal should not have been dismissed without adjudicating the issues on merits.

The Tribunal decided that the core issues concerning the taxability of lease rentals received by the assessee on leasing of aircraft would be decided based on the parity of facts with a lead matter. The appeals were allowed to that extent.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the appeals back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted another opportunity to be heard, subject to payment of costs.

The Tribunal restored all appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a fair opportunity to the assessee to present their case and the assessee was directed to furnish all required details and evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to justify the inordinate delay in filing the appeals.

The tribunal noted that the appeal was a duplicate of another appeal that had already been heard. Consequently, the tribunal accepted the withdrawal request.

The Tribunal held that denial of exemption solely on account of delay in filing Form 10B, when reasonably explained and supported by a pending condonation application, is not justified. The Assessing Officer was directed to consider the filed Form 10B and allow exemption if otherwise eligible.

The Tribunal found that the gain from the same transaction was added in the hands of both the husband and wife, which is unacceptable. The Tribunal set aside the order of the First Appellate Authority and restored the issues for de-novo adjudication after condoning the delay.

The Tribunal found that the gain from the same transaction was added in the hands of both the husband and wife, which is unacceptable. The Tribunal set aside the order of the First Appellate Authority and restored the issues for de-novo adjudication after condoning the delay.

The Tribunal held that the loss claimed by the assessee was rightly disallowed. However, it found that the addition of the sale price of shares and the estimated commission were not justified without proper opportunity or cogent evidence.

The Tribunal found that the gain from the same transaction was added in the hands of both the husband and wife, which is unacceptable. The Tribunal set aside the order of the First Appellate Authority and restored the issues for de-novo adjudication after condoning the delay.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had now provided additional evidence, including bank statements and a bank certificate, which prima facie indicated the fixed deposit belonged to the assessee's father and was funded from NRE accounts. The Tribunal found these evidences crucial for determining ownership and source of funds and directed the AO to re-examine the issue de novo.

The Tribunal directed the TPO/Assessing Officer to adopt a 50:50 split for determining the ALP of the Guarantee Commission using the interest saving method. It also held that the computation of book profits under Section 115JB should be made without resorting to the computation under Section 14A.

The Tribunal held that since the addition which formed the basis for the penalty levy was deleted by the co-ordinate bench, the penalty deserved to be set aside. The penalty was directed to be deleted as its foundation no longer existed.

The Tribunal held that since the addition based on which the penalty was imposed had been deleted by the ITAT in a further appeal, the penalty had no basis. Therefore, the deletion of the penalty by the First Appellate Authority was upheld.

The Tribunal found that the delay was not inordinate and that justice would be better served by deciding the appeal on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the First Appellate Authority's order.

The Tribunal restored all appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a fair opportunity to the assessee to present their case and the assessee was directed to furnish all required details and evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had rectified the issue regarding the application of funds outside India by amending its Memorandum of Association. It also noted a recent amendment empowering authorities to condone delays in filing. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for de-novo consideration of both the Section 12AB regularization and the Section 80G approval.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the appeals back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted another opportunity to be heard, subject to payment of costs.

The Tribunal restored all appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a fair opportunity to the assessee to present their case and the assessee was directed to furnish all required details and evidence.

The Tribunal held that when purchases are found to be non-genuine but corresponding sales are accepted and books of account are not rejected, only the profit element embedded in such purchases is taxable. The CIT(A)'s restriction of disallowance to 12.5% was found reasonable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s distinction for levying interest under section 234C was unsustainable. The business commenced in October 2019, so no income could have been estimated for earlier advance tax instalments, making the interest levy invalid for those periods.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had rectified the issue regarding the application of funds outside India by amending its Memorandum of Association. It also noted a recent amendment empowering authorities to condone delays in filing. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for de-novo consideration of both the Section 12AB regularization and the Section 80G approval.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal without providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to explain the delay and produce supporting evidence. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that there is no statutory bar in claiming deduction under Section 80G for donations made out of CSR funds, as long as the recipient institution is approved under Section 80G and other conditions are met. The disallowance of the deduction by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal held that filing Form 10DA within the prescribed time is a mandatory procedural requirement for claiming deduction under Section 80JJAA. Following co-ordinate bench decisions, the Tribunal rejected the assessee's claim.

The Tribunal restored all appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a fair opportunity to the assessee to present their case and the assessee was directed to furnish all required details and evidence.

The Tribunal held that the difference between the agreement value and stamp duty value should be verified against the 10% tolerance band. If the difference is within this band, Section 50C should not be invoked. The matter was set aside to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal decided that the core issues concerning the taxability of lease rentals received by the assessee on leasing of aircraft would be decided based on the parity of facts with a lead matter. The appeals were allowed to that extent.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the loss claimed by the assessee was rightly disallowed. However, it found that the addition of the sale price of shares and the estimated commission were not justified without proper opportunity or cogent evidence.

The Tribunal held that there cannot be two assessments for the same assessment year and transaction. Since the AO himself declared the first reassessment order infructuous by dropping penalty proceedings, the appeal against it was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal decided that the core issues concerning the taxability of lease rentals received by the assessee on leasing of aircraft would be decided based on the parity of facts with a lead matter. The appeals were allowed to that extent.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings and the consequential assessment order were bad in law due to non-compliance with the provisions of Section 151(ii) of the Act regarding the competent authority for sanction. The notice and assessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal decided that the core issues concerning the taxability of lease rentals received by the assessee on leasing of aircraft would be decided based on the parity of facts with a lead matter. The appeals were allowed to that extent.

The Tribunal decided that the core issues concerning the taxability of lease rentals received by the assessee on leasing of aircraft would be decided based on the parity of facts with a lead matter. The appeals were allowed to that extent.

The Tribunal decided that the core issues concerning the taxability of lease rentals received by the assessee on leasing of aircraft would be decided based on the parity of facts with a lead matter. The appeals were allowed to that extent.

The Tribunal decided that the core issues concerning the taxability of lease rentals received by the assessee on leasing of aircraft would be decided based on the parity of facts with a lead matter. The appeals were allowed to that extent.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, finding that the assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness of the transactions in M/s. Tilak Ventures Ltd. shares. The Tribunal noted the unusual price rise, lack of company activity, and the investigation wing's report indicating accommodation entries.

The Tribunal decided that the core issues concerning the taxability of lease rentals received by the assessee on leasing of aircraft would be decided based on the parity of facts with a lead matter. The appeals were allowed to that extent.

The Tribunal decided that the core issues concerning the taxability of lease rentals received by the assessee on leasing of aircraft would be decided based on the parity of facts with a lead matter. The appeals were allowed to that extent.

The Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision, finding that the assessee failed to substantiate the genuineness of the transactions in M/s. Tilak Ventures Ltd. shares. The Tribunal noted the unusual price rise, lack of company activity, and the investigation wing's report indicating accommodation entries.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a denovo assessment. The assessee is granted one more opportunity to explain the source of investment and submit additional evidence.

The Tribunal found that the gain from the same transaction was added in the hands of both the husband and wife, which is unacceptable. The Tribunal set aside the order of the First Appellate Authority and restored the issues for de-novo adjudication after condoning the delay.

The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148 was invalid because the approval was obtained from the wrong authority (PCIT instead of Pr. CCIT) and the escaped income was below the threshold limit for reopening beyond 3 years. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.