ITAT Mumbai Judgments — April 2026

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits due to the assessee's non-appearance. However, the assessee had sought an adjournment. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to present their case on merits.

The Tribunal held that the DVO did not follow the prescribed procedure under Section 16A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, by failing to serve a proper notice on the assessee before determining the fair market value of the property. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication after obtaining a fresh DVO report in compliance with statutory provisions.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's contentions and the materials filed were not properly appreciated by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the franchise fees paid to BCCI for participating in the IPL were revenue in nature and deductible. The disallowance of hospitality expenses was also deleted, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that the franchise fees paid to BCCI for participating in the IPL were revenue in nature and deductible. The disallowance of hospitality expenses was also deleted, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient explanation and evidence regarding the purchase and ownership of the gold bullion. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 80IA(4) for certain assessment years, following higher court decisions that work contracts are eligible. For other assessment years, it partly allowed appeals concerning disallowances of business expenses.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, finding no corroborative evidence beyond the retracted statement of an employee. The cross-objection regarding deemed rent was partly allowed by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal found no reason to interfere.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, finding no corroborative evidence beyond the retracted statement of an employee. The cross-objection regarding deemed rent was partly allowed by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal found no reason to interfere.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was not barred by limitation as it was passed within the un-amended provisions of Section 275(1)(a). However, the grounds related to the merits of the penalty levy were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, finding no corroborative evidence beyond the retracted statement of an employee. The cross-objection regarding deemed rent was partly allowed by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal found no reason to interfere.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, finding no corroborative evidence beyond the retracted statement of an employee. The cross-objection regarding deemed rent was partly allowed by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal found no reason to interfere.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, finding no corroborative evidence beyond the retracted statement of an employee. The cross-objection regarding deemed rent was partly allowed by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal found no reason to interfere.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, finding no corroborative evidence beyond the retracted statement of an employee. The cross-objection regarding deemed rent was partly allowed by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal found no reason to interfere.

The Tribunal held that the rectification order was bad in law as the CIT(A) had already passed an order before the rectification order was issued, rendering the original assessment order non-existent. Furthermore, changing a protective addition to a substantive addition is a debatable issue, not rectifiable under Section 154.

The Tribunal held that the additions on account of bogus purchases were bad in law as the AO failed to reject the books of accounts and lacked corroborative evidence. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the addition related to gold bullion, finding it to be a protective addition that was unjustifiable.

The Tribunal held that the franchise fees paid to BCCI for participating in the IPL were revenue in nature and deductible. The disallowance of hospitality expenses was also deleted, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, finding no corroborative evidence beyond the retracted statement of an employee. The cross-objection regarding deemed rent was partly allowed by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal found no reason to interfere.

The Tribunal held that the additions on account of bogus purchases were bad in law as the AO failed to reject the books of accounts and lacked corroborative evidence. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the addition related to gold bullion, finding it to be a protective addition that was unjustifiable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions, finding no corroborative evidence beyond the retracted statement of an employee. The cross-objection regarding deemed rent was partly allowed by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal found no reason to interfere.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any exempt income earned by the assessee, no disallowance under Section 14A can be made. Reliance on CBDT Circular No. 5/2014 was deemed misplaced as it cannot override statutory provisions and judicial pronouncements.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any exempt income earned by the assessee, no disallowance under Section 14A can be made. Reliance on CBDT Circular No. 5/2014 was deemed misplaced as it cannot override statutory provisions and judicial pronouncements.

The Tribunal held that since the issue regarding the deductibility of lease premium was admitted as a substantial question of law by the Hon'ble High Court, it indicated a debatable issue. Therefore, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that the reopening of assessment was not sustainable as it contradicted prior ITAT orders. The addition was also deleted based on the principle of judicial consistency with prior rulings in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal held that since the issue regarding the deductibility of lease premium was admitted as a substantial question of law by the Hon'ble High Court, it indicated a debatable issue. Therefore, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus under Section 68 of the Act to prove the creditworthiness of M/s Raj Associates and the genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal noted cash deposits in M/s Raj Associates' account prior to issuing cheques to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus under Section 68 of the Act to prove the creditworthiness of M/s Raj Associates and the genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal noted cash deposits in M/s Raj Associates' account prior to issuing cheques to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from investments made with other co-operative societies, including co-operative banks, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). Section 80P(4) does not preclude this deduction for the investing society.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The AO is directed to verify the quantum of income and tax paid for the entire financial year 2022-23 based on the US tax returns filed for Calendar Years 2022 and 2023.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 30.07.2022, was issued beyond the period of limitation, rendering it invalid. Consequently, all assessment proceedings arising from this invalid notice were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 was not validly served as it was issued to an incorrect address after the assessee's retirement, and service by affixture was also improper. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings were invalid and made in violation of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is beyond the prescribed time limit, especially considering the relaxation provisions (TOLA) and amendments to sections 147-151 by the Finance Act, 2021. Relying on precedents, the notice was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as there was no mention of notice issuance and service on the assessee. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench's order in a similar case for AY 2020-21, decided to provide the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. This was conditional upon the payment of a cost of Rs. 11,000/- to the Income Tax Department within two months.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee for the delay were sufficient and fell within the parameters for condonation of delay, prioritizing substantial justice over technicalities. The Tribunal decided to condone the delay.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of substantial justice. It held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 is retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the depreciation on the trademark should be allowed based on the opening Written Down Value. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance under Section 14A, as the assessee had not earned any exempt income during the relevant assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the depreciation on the trademark should be allowed based on its opening Written Down Value. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance under Section 14A as the assessee had not earned any exempt income.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1064 days, finding that the reasons explained through notarized affidavits constituted 'sufficient cause'. The Tribunal emphasized the principles of natural justice, stating that a litigant should not be denied adjudication on merits when reasonable cause is demonstrated.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio due to non-compliance with the provisions of Section 151 of the Act regarding the approval for issuing the notice under Section 148. The approval was obtained from an incorrect authority.

The Tribunal held that a mere delay in filing Form 67 does not preclude the assessee from claiming foreign tax credit. The claim was denied on a technicality without considering the merits.

The Tribunal observed that the AO had previously allowed similar claims in earlier assessment years. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that for subsequent assessment years, the returns were processed under section 143(1) without scrutiny. Due to these peculiar facts and the need for examination in light of Section 11(6), the Tribunal decided to remand the issue.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the Supreme Court's directions and the explanation provided by the assessee regarding the negligence of the previous tax consultant. The Tribunal held that interest earned by a co-operative society from investments in a co-operative bank is allowable as a deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, relying on various Supreme Court judgments. However, the issue was restored to the AO for verification of the interest amount and genuineness of transactions.

The Tribunal held that the income from auditorium letting was incidental to the main charitable objects and did not attract the proviso to Section 2(15). The dominant object of the assessee's activities was charitable, not profit-making.

The Tribunal held that a penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied solely on the basis of an estimated addition, especially when the quantum addition was significantly reduced from the initial estimate. Following High Court precedents, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the income from auditorium letting was incidental to the main charitable objects and did not attract the proviso to Section 2(15). The dominant object of the assessee's activities was charitable, not profit-making.

The Tribunal held that the depreciation on the trademark should be allowed based on its opening Written Down Value. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance under Section 14A as the assessee had not earned any exempt income.

The Tribunal held that the depreciation on the trademark should be allowed based on its opening Written Down Value. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance under Section 14A as the assessee had not earned any exempt income.

The Tribunal held that 'Hardship Compensation' received under such agreements is generally considered a capital receipt and not taxable. Although the assessee had offered it to tax as revenue, the AO's addition of Rs. 33,70,773/- was deemed unjustified and amounted to double taxation.

The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in St. Thomas High School and a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for a different assessment year, condoned the delay in filing Form 10BB. It held that a procedural lapse in filing the audit report beyond the due date should not be fatal to claiming exemption, especially when substantial compliance is met and the report is available during processing.