ITAT Mumbai Judgments — May 2026

The Tribunal held that the amendment to the Finance Act rendered the ground regarding the mandatory faceless mechanism unavailable to the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had not dealt with the AO's specific reasons for making additions under Section 68.

The Tribunal held that since the original registration certificate under Section 12AA has been found and produced as additional evidence, the matter should be set aside to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The application under Section 80G was also set aside for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner erred in invoking Section 263 jurisdiction without examining the validity of the mandatory approval obtained under Section 153D of the Act. Since the assessment orders were passed with the necessary approval, the revisionary powers could not be exercised.

The Tribunal held that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was contrary to the remand findings. The accepted sources substantially explained the deposits, leaving only a small amount unexplained.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, holding that the assessee should not suffer for the negligence of their professional. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal in limine was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the Principal Commissioner erred in invoking Section 263 jurisdiction without examining the validity of the mandatory approval obtained under Section 153D of the Act. Since the assessment orders were passed with the necessary approval, the revisionary powers could not be exercised.

The Tribunal held that the addition could not be sustained as the assessee was not provided an opportunity to cross-examine the witness whose statements were relied upon, and the property valuation was done by the Stamp Duty Valuation Authority. The Tribunal relied on a similar case where such additions were deleted.

The ITAT admitted additional legal grounds regarding the validity of reopening, which were not adjudicated by the lower authorities. Consequently, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The ITAT admitted additional legal grounds regarding the validity of reopening, which were not adjudicated by the lower authorities. Consequently, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the approval ought to have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner. As the approval was granted by a lower authority, the reassessment proceedings were quashed for want of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that since the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the approval ought to have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner. As the approval was granted by a lower authority, the reassessment proceedings were quashed for want of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no evidence of commission payment and noting that similar additions related to the scrip in question had been deleted in previous cases, including those upheld by the High Court. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no evidence of commission payment and noting that similar additions related to the scrip in question had been deleted in previous cases, including those upheld by the High Court. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no evidence of commission payment and noting that similar additions related to the scrip in question had been deleted in previous cases, including those upheld by the High Court. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds.

The Tribunal held that Section 43CA was not applicable as the transaction predated its introduction. It also held that interest on borrowed capital for business purposes is deductible under Section 36(1)(iii) and foreign exchange losses are allowable as revenue expenditure.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no evidence of commission payment and noting that similar additions related to the scrip in question had been deleted in previous cases, including those upheld by the High Court. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders framed under section 143(3) read with section 153C of the Act were bad in law and liable to be quashed. The primary reason was the absence of any incriminating material pertaining to the assessee found during the search conducted in the case of M/s Patel RPL Realty Group. The Tribunal noted that the additions were mainly based on ledger accounts, which were part of the regular books of account, and post-search inquiries. The assessee had provided confirmations, bank statements, financial statements, and details of repayment through banking channels, which the revenue authorities had not conclusively disproved. The Tribunal followed the coordinate bench decisions in M/s J.S. Infrastructure and Bechar Raghvji Patel, which arose from the same search action and held that in the absence of incriminating material, no addition can be sustained in respect of an unabated assessment year, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. The Tribunal also found that the statement of Shri Hiren Bechar Patel, relied upon by the revenue, was not directly linked to the assessee and lacked corroborative incriminating evidence. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 25,47,533/- made under section 68 read with section 115BBE was deleted. Other grounds were rendered academic.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders framed under section 143(3) read with section 153C of the Act were bad in law and liable to be quashed. The primary reason was the absence of any incriminating material pertaining to the assessee found during the search conducted in the case of M/s Patel RPL Realty Group. The Tribunal noted that the additions were mainly based on ledger accounts, which were part of the regular books of account, and post-search inquiries. The assessee had provided confirmations, bank statements, financial statements, and details of repayment through banking channels, which the revenue authorities had not conclusively disproved. The Tribunal followed the coordinate bench decisions in M/s J.S. Infrastructure and Bechar Raghvji Patel, which arose from the same search action and held that in the absence of incriminating material, no addition can be sustained in respect of an unabated assessment year, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. The Tribunal also found that the statement of Shri Hiren Bechar Patel, relied upon by the revenue, was not directly linked to the assessee and lacked corroborative incriminating evidence. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 25,47,533/- made under section 68 read with section 115BBE was deleted. Other grounds were rendered academic.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders framed under section 143(3) read with section 153C of the Act were bad in law and liable to be quashed. The primary reason was the absence of any incriminating material pertaining to the assessee found during the search conducted in the case of M/s Patel RPL Realty Group. The Tribunal noted that the additions were mainly based on ledger accounts, which were part of the regular books of account, and post-search inquiries. The assessee had provided confirmations, bank statements, financial statements, and details of repayment through banking channels, which the revenue authorities had not conclusively disproved. The Tribunal followed the coordinate bench decisions in M/s J.S. Infrastructure and Bechar Raghvji Patel, which arose from the same search action and held that in the absence of incriminating material, no addition can be sustained in respect of an unabated assessment year, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. The Tribunal also found that the statement of Shri Hiren Bechar Patel, relied upon by the revenue, was not directly linked to the assessee and lacked corroborative incriminating evidence. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 25,47,533/- made under section 68 read with section 115BBE was deleted. Other grounds were rendered academic.

The Tribunal upheld the AO's disallowance of the write-off of advances to the sister concern, finding it to be a business venture loss rather than a bad debt. The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid based on prima facie material.

The Tribunal held that the rental income from warehousing is to be treated as 'Income from House Property', following its own prior decision and Supreme Court judgments. The assessee was not engaged in a systematic and organized warehousing activity.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no evidence of commission payment and noting that similar additions related to the scrip in question had been deleted in previous cases, including those upheld by the High Court. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no evidence of commission payment and noting that similar additions related to the scrip in question had been deleted in previous cases, including those upheld by the High Court. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds.

The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the AO made the addition merely on suspicion without any direct evidence linking the assessee to bogus transactions. The statements from R&B Infra's personnel did not name the assessee or their sales as non-genuine.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no evidence of commission payment and noting that similar additions related to the scrip in question had been deleted in previous cases, including those upheld by the High Court. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated in contravention of Sections 147 to 151A of the Act. It also found that additions were made relying solely on third-party information without independent application of mind or providing an opportunity for cross-examination.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding it not intentional. For AY 2017-18 and 2018-19, the Tribunal allowed the deduction, holding that cooperative banks are primarily cooperative societies and income earned from them is eligible for deduction. For AY 2020-21, the matter was restored to the AO for limited verification due to an ex-parte assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding it not intentional. For AY 2017-18 and 2018-19, the Tribunal allowed the deduction, holding that cooperative banks are primarily cooperative societies and income earned from them is eligible for deduction. For AY 2020-21, the matter was restored to the AO for limited verification due to an ex-parte assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding it not intentional. For AY 2017-18 and 2018-19, the Tribunal allowed the deduction, holding that cooperative banks are primarily cooperative societies and income earned from them is eligible for deduction. For AY 2020-21, the matter was restored to the AO for limited verification due to an ex-parte assessment.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271G was wrongly levied as the assessee had substantially complied with the documentation requirements. The Tribunal also noted that no adjustment was made to the Arm's Length Price (ALP) and that there was a reasonable cause for any deficiency due to practical constraints in the diamond business.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271G was wrongly levied as the assessee had substantially complied with the documentation requirements. The Tribunal also noted that no adjustment was made to the Arm's Length Price (ALP) and that there was a reasonable cause for any deficiency due to practical constraints in the diamond business.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order with reasons for its decision, after conducting necessary inquiries.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the addition made was not on the issue for which the assessment was reopened. The Assessing Officer could not make an addition on a different issue if the original reason for reopening was not sustained.

The Tribunal held that the assessment orders framed under section 143(3) read with section 153C of the Act were bad in law and liable to be quashed. The primary reason was the absence of any incriminating material pertaining to the assessee found during the search conducted in the case of M/s Patel RPL Realty Group. The Tribunal noted that the additions were mainly based on ledger accounts, which were part of the regular books of account, and post-search inquiries. The assessee had provided confirmations, bank statements, financial statements, and details of repayment through banking channels, which the revenue authorities had not conclusively disproved. The Tribunal followed the coordinate bench decisions in M/s J.S. Infrastructure and Bechar Raghvji Patel, which arose from the same search action and held that in the absence of incriminating material, no addition can be sustained in respect of an unabated assessment year, citing the Supreme Court judgment in Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. The Tribunal also found that the statement of Shri Hiren Bechar Patel, relied upon by the revenue, was not directly linked to the assessee and lacked corroborative incriminating evidence. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 25,47,533/- made under section 68 read with section 115BBE was deleted. Other grounds were rendered academic.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no evidence of commission payment and noting that similar additions related to the scrip in question had been deleted in previous cases, including those upheld by the High Court. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds.

The Tribunal noted that both lower authorities passed ex-parte orders without examining the assessee's claim of being a name-lender and that her husband offered the capital gains in his return. The matter was remanded for fresh examination by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. The AO is directed to wait for the outcome of the Section 264 revision petition before passing a fresh penalty order.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision. The Ld.CIT(A) is directed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the professional fees were incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes, satisfying Section 37(1) of the Act. The disallowance was directed to be deleted, considering the peculiar business circumstances and substantial documentary evidence provided.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction was not genuine, considering the nature of the political party and the circumstances surrounding the donation. The donation constituted a significant portion of the assessee's net profit, and there was no clear link between the assessee's business and a party claiming to work for agriculturists.

The Tribunal found that the entire cash deposit could not be considered income and that the assessee deserved another opportunity to explain its case. However, the assessee's failure to file returns and comply with notices was also noted.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for discount on unredeemed gift cards and vouchers, setting aside the lower authorities' orders. It also allowed grounds related to sales promotion discount and loyalty programs for book profit computation for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for discount on unredeemed gift cards and vouchers, setting aside the lower authorities' orders. It also allowed grounds related to sales promotion discount and loyalty programs for book profit computation for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as it had become infructuous. The CIT(E) had already granted the renewal of registration.

The Tribunal held that the liability had accrued during the year under the mercantile system of accounting, supported by business obligations, correspondence, and surrounding circumstances. The liability was considered a business expenditure and not contingent.

The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148, issued after April 1, 2021, for AY 2015-16, was time-barred and invalid as per Supreme Court judgments. Consequently, the assessment order and the CIT(A) order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that Form 3CL, issued by the prescribed authority, quantifies the eligible expenditure for deduction under section 35(2AB). The AO was mandated to consider this report when submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the lower authorities erred in not quantifying the deduction as per Form 3CL.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under section 143(1) was not in conformity with the first proviso to section 143(1)(a) as no intimation was given to the assessee regarding this specific adjustment. Therefore, the adjustment was deleted.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution as the assessee repeatedly failed to appear for hearings despite opportunities. The Tribunal cited the inherent power to dismiss appeals when a party does not appear.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had satisfactorily discharged the onus under Section 68 by furnishing confirmations, bank statements, and income-tax particulars of the creditors. The AO failed to bring any tangible evidence to controvert the assessee's submissions.