ITAT Mumbai Judgments — May 2026

The assessee's counsel sought to withdraw the appeal during the hearing. The Revenue did not object to this request. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the withdrawal application.

The assessee requested to withdraw its appeals, stating that the registration was granted by the High Court. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of both appeals filed by the assessee. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The assessee requested to withdraw its appeals, stating that the registration was granted by the High Court. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that Section 145A mandates the inclusion of taxes in the valuation of inventory, regardless of the accounting method. However, the AO erred by not adjusting the opening stock, thus the addition was partly allowed.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of both appeals filed by the assessee. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the disallowances were made predominantly on presumptions without comprehensive factual verification. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after conducting necessary inquiries with concerned parties.

The Tribunal found that the disallowances were made predominantly on presumptions without comprehensive factual verification. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after conducting necessary inquiries with concerned parties.

The Tribunal found that the disallowances were made predominantly on presumptions without comprehensive factual verification. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after conducting necessary inquiries with concerned parties.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that revenue from extended warranty services should be recognized over the warranty period, not entirely in the year of receipt. The accounting policy followed by the assessee was found to be in consonance with AS9 and ICDS standards.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided for the delay were sufficient cause for condonation, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. MST Katiji. The Tribunal found that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating the issues on merits. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh 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 of the Act. Therefore, the notice and subsequent assessment order were invalid.

The Tribunal found that the disallowances were made predominantly on presumptions without comprehensive factual verification. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after conducting necessary inquiries with concerned parties.

The Tribunal found that the disallowances were made predominantly on presumptions without comprehensive factual verification. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after conducting necessary inquiries with concerned parties.

The Tribunal held that the issue of stamp duty valuation requires verification and restored it to the AO. It also held that the period of holding should be reckoned from the date of allotment, making the gain long-term capital gain.

The Tribunal considered the request of the assessee's counsel. Both appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal considered the request of the assessee's counsel. Both appeals were dismissed as withdrawn by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the disallowances were made predominantly on presumptions without comprehensive factual verification. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after conducting necessary inquiries with concerned parties.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 11(3) by the Finance Act, 2022, is prospective and cannot be applied retrospectively to accumulations made in earlier years. Therefore, the utilization in the 6th year from the year of accumulation is permissible for AY 2023-24.

The Tribunal found that complete factual material regarding the reassessment proceedings and the validity of the reopening notice was not available for adjudication. The legal grounds raised by the assessee were not considered by the lower appellate authority.

The Tribunal held that the development agreement merely granted development rights and permissive access, not a transfer of possession contemplated under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The society retained ownership rights, and the developer was granted limited rights for redevelopment.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the principles of natural justice. However, it noted the assessee's lack of plausible explanation for non-compliance and imposed a cost.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions on account of unexplained cash credit and disallowance of indirect expenses. The Tribunal followed previous decisions in similar group cases.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on merits, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee constituted a sufficient cause for the delay. Procedural rules should favor substantial justice, and the delay did not benefit the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the application for regular registration, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances and the potential for substantial justice. The case was remanded to the Commissioner for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex parte without considering the assessee's request for adjournment and the reasons for non-compliance. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of purchases, only the profit margin on the transaction should be added. Since the assessee already offered 12.5%, no further addition was warranted, and the addition made by the AO and CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form No.10AB was due to a bona fide misunderstanding and that the assessee had amended its Memorandum of Association to address the CIT(E)'s concerns. Therefore, the matter required fresh examination.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the disallowance to 5% of the bogus purchases. This was considered reasonable as it was higher than the assessee's declared net profit, implying that the profit embedded in the sales was being taxed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the business development and promotion expenses, noting that similar MOUs were accepted in subsequent years and the AO had not doubted the reasonableness of expenses. The Tribunal also affirmed the allowance of depreciation on the motor car based on prior tribunal rulings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and set aside the ex-parte order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) was also deleted due to reasonable cause for non-compliance.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and set aside the ex-parte orders. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, and a penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) was deleted due to sufficient cause for non-compliance.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and set aside the ex-parte order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) was also deleted due to reasonable cause for non-compliance.

The Tribunal found that the assessment was made without complete verification of facts and evidence, relying on partial examination and presumptions. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after proper verification of fund trails, lender's financial capacity, and relationship between parties.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and set aside the ex-parte order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) was also deleted due to reasonable cause for non-compliance.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to present additional evidence and demonstrate the genuineness of cash deposits made during the demonetization period. Both parties agreed to this course of action.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the assessee's cross objection and found that the reassessment approval was not obtained from the prescribed authority, rendering the proceedings invalid. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions under Section 68, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient documentary evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the assessee's cross objection and found that the reassessment approval was not obtained from the prescribed authority, rendering the proceedings invalid. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions under Section 68, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient documentary evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the assessee's cross objection and found that the reassessment approval was not obtained from the prescribed authority, rendering the proceedings invalid. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of additions under Section 68, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient documentary evidence.

The Tribunal held that Section 69C is not applicable to the repayment of a loan, even if the loan was from a bogus entity, as the amount was not claimed as an expenditure by the assessee. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was unsustainable.

The Tribunal noted that subsequent orders from the CIT(E) had allowed the assessee's claims for 12A and 80G registration. Therefore, the appeals filed by the assessee were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal noted that subsequent orders from the CIT(E) had allowed the assessee's claims for 12A and 80G registration. Therefore, the appeals filed by the assessee were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's casual conduct but also emphasized the principles of natural justice. It decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present its case and evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a SEBI-registered AIF, consistently treated share transactions as capital gains, and the AO lacked cogent material to re-characterize them as business income. The Tribunal also found that the assessee provided sufficient evidence for the 'unit premium reserve' being based on Net Asset Value (NAV).

The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had passed orders without considering sufficient evidence provided by the assessee, such as bank statements and agreements. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to re-examine all evidence.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have adjudicated the legal and jurisdictional grounds raised by the assessee before restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication of these grounds.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn due to the subsequent favorable orders from the CIT(E).

The Tribunal held that Section 68 is not applicable as the transaction was not a credit entry. While upholding the Revenue's legal ground that the addition shouldn't be deleted solely on the wrong section, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for verification of the cheque's realization in the subsequent year.