ITAT Mumbai Judgments — April 2026

The Tribunal allowed the appeal on grounds 1, 2, 3, and 4, deleting the additions as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for loans from her husband and sons, and for agricultural income and gift. For ground 5, the addition was restricted to the short-term capital gain.

The Tribunal, following a previous decision for the preceding assessment year, restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to re-examine the interest income, considering whether it's derived from borrowed funds directly linked to project acquisition, to determine if it's a capital receipt or taxable income.

The Tribunal held that immunity from penalty under section 270AA cannot be granted as the penalty was initiated under section 270A(9), which is an exception. However, the Tribunal allowed the admission of additional evidence and remitted the matter to the AO for fresh consideration of the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, finding that the disallowances made by the AO were not justified and that the Commissioner had correctly applied legal precedents and factual findings. The Tribunal also upheld the Commissioner's direction to verify an additional claim for deduction.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had a plausible explanation for non-compliance due to notices being sent to an incorrect email address. Principles of natural justice require an effective opportunity to be heard.

The CIT(A) did not adjudicate the ground regarding the assessee being an 'assessee in default' but confirmed the interest levied under Section 201(1A). The Tribunal found that the first ground was not adjudicated and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the principal amount of loan waived is not chargeable to tax under Section 28(iv) or Section 41(1) as it is in the nature of money and not a trading liability. The reassessment was also quashed on jurisdictional grounds.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, finding that the disallowances made by the AO were not justified and that the Commissioner had correctly applied legal precedents and factual findings. The Tribunal also upheld the Commissioner's direction to verify an additional claim for deduction.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, finding that the disallowances made by the AO were not justified and that the Commissioner had correctly applied legal precedents and factual findings. The Tribunal also upheld the Commissioner's direction to verify an additional claim for deduction.

The Tribunal admitted the registered valuer's report for the property valuation and restored the issue of deemed income to the AO for reference to the DVO. For unexplained investment, the Tribunal accepted most of the claimed loans from family members and personal savings, deleting a significant portion of the addition.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's genuine reasons for the delay. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and that the assessee did not get a sufficient opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not consider the evidence submitted by the assessee to substantiate the expenses. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the approval for issuing the notice under Section 148 was not obtained from the specified authority as required by Section 151(ii) of the Act, as the reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the notice and reassessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval for issuing the notice under Section 148 was not obtained from the specified authority as required by Section 151(ii) of the Act, as the reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the notice and reassessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 and the consequent assessment order were barred by time limitation, rendering them void ab initio. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn due to the inadvertent filing with a wrong PAN.

The Tribunal held that the income earned by the assessee, including interest and dividend from investments in other cooperative societies/banks, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). This decision was based on previous rulings in the assessee's own case and other similar cases.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, finding that the disallowances made by the AO were not justified and that the Commissioner had correctly applied legal precedents and factual findings. The Tribunal also upheld the Commissioner's direction to verify an additional claim for deduction.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the amount received was a pending part of the sale consideration from a previously taxed transaction and thus could not be treated as unexplained. The Revenue failed to provide evidence to controvert the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the amount received was a pending part of the sale consideration from a previously taxed transaction and thus could not be treated as unexplained. The Revenue failed to provide evidence to controvert the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the AO's reliance on Project Falcon data without specific corroboration was insufficient. The Tribunal also found that the lender's financial standing and the genuineness of the loan transaction were sufficiently proved.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in making the addition under Section 56(2)(viib) as the valuation report, even if based on projections, was not properly scrutinized or rejected with an alternative valuation. The Tribunal also noted that the AO did not follow prescribed methods for valuation.

The Tribunal held that if the entire sale consideration is utilized for purchasing a new property before filing the return of income, even if it's a belated return, the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 54. The issue of verifying the payments made for the new property was remanded to the AO.

The Tribunal noted the lack of specific details regarding the interest income and the assessee's failure to provide them to the lower authorities. However, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restore the matter to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Considering the need for a proper adjudication and substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the cases back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) considering the assessee's circumstances and interest in pursuing the case on merits. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh assessment order after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity.

The Tribunal noted that the subsequent rectification orders by the CIT(E) rendered the appeals infructuous. Therefore, the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals was accepted.

The Tribunal noted that the subsequent rectification orders by the CIT(E) rendered the appeals infructuous. Therefore, the assessee requested to withdraw the appeals.

The Tribunal held that there is no express bar in Sections 87A or 111A for allowing rebate on STCG. Denial of rebate based solely on system-driven processing by CPC is not sustainable. Statutory benefits cannot be curtailed by automated logic.

The Tribunal held that interest earned by a cooperative society from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal relied on Supreme Court judgments which clarified that cooperative banks are considered cooperative societies for this purpose.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus by providing documentary evidence and the revenue failed to establish the assessee's involvement in any alleged manipulation. The addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT was liable to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 on 27/07/2022 was barred by limitation, following the Supreme Court's decisions in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal. The reassessment proceedings were therefore void ab initio.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's explanation plausible and unintentional. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, as the previous order was ex-parte.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Considering the need for a proper adjudication and substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the cases back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to decide the case on merit. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to decide the case on merit. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the Section 148 notice was issued to a non-existent entity and Section 292B did not apply. It also held that Section 292BB did not cure the complete absence of a Section 143(2) notice.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) is a quasi-judicial authority duty-bound to adjudicate all grounds raised, including legal grounds like the validity of reopening. The CIT(A) cannot summarily dismiss an appeal without independent adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition, which formed the basis of the penalty, was remanded for fresh adjudication, the penalty appeal should also be remanded. The CIT(A) is directed to decide the penalty along with the quantum proceedings after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be sustained when the addition is based solely on a statutory deeming fiction, such as the difference between actual consideration and stamp duty valuation, without any finding of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order violated Section 250(6) of the Act by being a non-speaking order and dismissing the appeal without considering the merits. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient evidence regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions. The AO and CIT(A) failed to rebut this evidence and made additions based on inspector reports and low income of lenders, which was not sufficient. The Tribunal also noted that repayment of loans further supported the genuineness.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient evidence regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions. The AO and CIT(A) failed to rebut this evidence and made additions based on inspector reports and low income of lenders, which was not sufficient. The Tribunal also noted that repayment of loans further supported the genuineness.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient evidence regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions. The AO and CIT(A) failed to rebut this evidence and made additions based on inspector reports and low income of lenders, which was not sufficient. The Tribunal also noted that repayment of loans further supported the genuineness.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after the assessee files a proper condonation application.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by applying amended provisions retrospectively. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal directed the AO to verify and rectify an arithmetical error in the computation of income and to verify and grant the claimed foreign tax credit. However, a ground regarding the withdrawal of a deduction claim was dismissed.

The Tribunal restored certain issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, particularly regarding the computation of interest on refunds and the allowability of provisions for wage revision. Other grounds were decided based on the facts and legal precedents.

The Tribunal held that the grounds challenging the reopening and limitation were infructuous due to legislative amendments. However, following consistent precedents in earlier years and finding the relevant DTAA articles pari materia, the Tribunal held that the receipts were not royalty or FTS under the Act and respective DTAAs because the 'make available' condition was not met. Therefore, the income was not taxable in India.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio due to the lack of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, all additions made based on these invalid proceedings were rendered academic.