ITAT Mumbai Judgments — April 2026

The Tribunal held that while the gifts from the wife were reasonably explained and deleted, only 50% of the cash gifts from the mother and father were accepted as reasonable, considering their declared income and bank statement activities. The remaining addition was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be granted another opportunity to explain the delay before the CIT(A). The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were restored for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sought adjournments due to compilation of information and ultimately furnished the required details, leading to the assessment being completed without additions. Therefore, the penalty for non-compliance was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be granted another opportunity to explain the delay before the CIT(A). The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were restored for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be granted another opportunity to explain the delay before the CIT(A). The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were restored for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 and the subsequent assessment order under section 147, which included an addition for unexplained expenditure under section 69C, are liable to be quashed. This is due to the non-compliance with the provisions of section 151(ii) regarding the correct sanctioning authority, as supported by a jurisdictional High Court judgment.

The tribunal held that rental income should be treated as income from 'other sources' and not 'income from house property', following a jurisdictional High Court decision. Consequently, notional rent could not be taxed, and expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for earning such income were deductible.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's reasons for delay constituted sufficient cause, aligning with Supreme Court precedents. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's lack of awareness and communication during assessment proceedings.

For AY 2012-13, the Tribunal restored the issue of loan addition to the AO for de novo adjudication, admitting additional evidence. For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the disallowance on expenses at 5%, aligning with a coordinate bench decision.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the penalty appeal as infructuous without considering the ITAT's prior order. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the penalty appeal afresh, considering the quantum appeal's outcome.

The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption under Section 11 in its entirety was not sustainable. Even if a violation of Section 13(1)(c) were presumed, the denial of exemption should be limited to the income directly relatable to such violation, not the entire income.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated after four years were not valid as there was no new tangible material and the AO relied on information already on record. The Tribunal found that the conditions for reopening the assessment under Section 147 were not met.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated after four years were not valid as there was no new tangible material and the AO relied on information already on record. The Tribunal found that the conditions for reopening the assessment under Section 147 were not met.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not considered all the evidence submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for re-adjudication after verifying the claims and allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found that proper verification of reconciliation of interest income with Form 26AS, the head under which income was offered, and the genuineness of interest expenditure was required. Both parties agreed to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of purchases from SVG Style and Textile Company Pvt. Ltd., as admitted by its director to be a provider of bogus bills. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s approach of restricting the addition to a percentage of bogus sales to be contrary to law, as the transactions were entirely bogus from inception.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution as the assessee failed to appear and present its case. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recalling of the order by substantiating reasons for non-appearance.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of purchases from SVG Style and Textile Company Pvt. Ltd., as admitted by its director to be a provider of bogus bills. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s approach of restricting the addition to a percentage of bogus sales to be contrary to law, as the transactions were entirely bogus from inception.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of purchases from SVG Style and Textile Company Pvt. Ltd., as admitted by its director to be a provider of bogus bills. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s approach of restricting the addition to a percentage of bogus sales to be contrary to law, as the transactions were entirely bogus from inception.

The Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- and cooperate with the proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not sustainable as it was conflicting and did not independently examine the conditions for penalty levy. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's initial request for withdrawal was unequivocal and the subsequent adjournment did not negate it. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in disposing of the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of purchases from SVG Style and Textile Company Pvt. Ltd., as admitted by its director to be a provider of bogus bills. The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s approach of restricting the addition to a percentage of bogus sales to be contrary to law, as the transactions were entirely bogus from inception.

The Tribunal upheld the DRP's decision to delete the transfer pricing adjustment on account of brand royalty. The TPO's determination of the arm's length price (ALP) at Nil without proper benchmarking was found to be legally unsustainable.

For AY 2012-13, the Tribunal restored the issue of loan addition to the AO for de novo adjudication, admitting additional evidence. For AY 2014-15, the Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the disallowance on expenses at 5%, aligning with a coordinate bench decision.

The Tribunal upheld the DRP's decision to delete the transfer pricing adjustment on account of brand royalty. The TPO's determination of the arm's length price (ALP) at Nil without proper benchmarking was found to be legally unsustainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 102 days, finding that the assessee had demonstrated sufficient cause. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal in limine was set aside, and the matter was restored for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions, which formed the basis for the penalty, were deleted by a Coordinate Bench of the ITAT, the penalty proceedings had no foundation. Therefore, the deletion of penalty by the NFAC was upheld.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party statements and uncorroborated data, without independent incriminating material against the assessee, are unsustainable. Principles of natural justice were violated as the material was not confronted to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party statements and uncorroborated data, without independent incriminating material against the assessee, are unsustainable. Principles of natural justice were violated as the material was not confronted to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party statements and uncorroborated data, without independent incriminating material against the assessee, are unsustainable. Principles of natural justice were violated as the material was not confronted to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid due to lack of independent inquiry and proper sanction under Section 151. The notice under Section 148 was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption under Section 11 in its entirety was not sustainable. Even if a violation of Section 13(1)(c) were presumed, the denial of exemption should be limited only to the income directly relatable to such violation, not the entire income.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of deemed notional income from house property for unsold inventory was not applicable, following its own prior decisions and High Court rulings. However, the addition made under Section 43CA was deleted as the difference between sale consideration and stamp duty valuation was within the permissible limit.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was justified based on credible information like RMS data and AIR information. The Tribunal also sustained the addition under Section 69A as the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proof by providing adequate evidence for the claimed sources of income.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of deemed notional income from house property for unsold inventory was not applicable, following its own prior decisions and High Court rulings. However, the addition made under Section 43CA was deleted as the difference between sale consideration and stamp duty valuation was within the permissible limit.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 10 days in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had provided a justifiable explanation and that the principle of advancing substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & ... us Mst. Katiji & Ors. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee's application for raising additional grounds, deeming them legal in nature and going to the root of the case, referencing Supreme Court decisions in Jute Corporation India Ltd. Vs. CIT and The NTPC Vs. CIT. Due to the legal nature of the additional grounds and the fact that the assessee was ex parte before the CIT(A), the Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for deciding the matter afresh. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee, to be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund, with a copy of the receipt to be filed before the CIT(A) within 30 days. The CIT(A) was directed to provide adequate opportunity of hearing and the assessee was directed to be cooperative and not seek frivolous adjournments.

The Tribunal held that the interest income was inextricably linked to the project, as the fixed deposits were a mandatory requirement for the bank guarantee which remained in force. Therefore, the interest income should be capitalized to work-in-progress.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, including sowing, breeding, and watering on its land, constituted basic agricultural operations. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's R&D company approval and MOU with a sister concern had expired, making its operations purely agricultural in the relevant assessment year.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and rejected the assessee's appeal. No cogent reasons were provided by the assessee to justify the delay in filing the appeal.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's explanation that the cash deposit represented her late mother's savings, intended for her granddaughters. The Tribunal found merit in this explanation, supported by an affidavit and the overall circumstances, and noted that the AO could not rebut the contentions.

The Tribunal noted that the assessment year was 2015-16, and six years from the end of the relevant year expired on 31.03.2022. The notice under Section 148 was issued on 29.06.2022, which is beyond the limitation period prescribed by the first proviso to Section 149(1). Relying on Supreme Court and Bombay High Court decisions, the Tribunal held the notice and consequent assessment order to be bad in law.

The Tribunal noted that none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite proper service of summons. The Tribunal observed that the penalty was levied due to the assessee concealing income through bogus purchases, a finding supported by the CIT(A) and corroborated by various judicial precedents. No new evidence was presented to rebut these findings.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide crucial evidence to lower authorities but admitted new evidence before it. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of the additional evidence.

The ITAT held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the merits. The tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the matter back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and rejected the assessee's appeal. No cogent reasons were provided by the assessee to justify the delay in filing the appeal.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and rejected the assessee's appeal. No cogent reasons were provided by the assessee to justify the delay in filing the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to furnish details for unsecured loans and did not provide reasons for non-submission. Since the assessee could not establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions, the additions were upheld. No new evidence was presented to rebut the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and rejected the assessee's appeal. No cogent reasons were provided by the assessee to justify the delay in filing the appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate the cost of acquisition with documentary evidence. While the assessee submitted an affidavit and relied on a case law, the Tribunal found it necessary to restore the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication.