ITAT Mumbai Judgments — May 2026

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 The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn due to the subsequent favorable orders from the CIT(E).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 the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the permissible limitation period, as per Supreme Court decisions. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed as void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that since Form 10-IC was available on the CPC portal at the time of processing and all other requirements were met, the benefit of Section 115BAA should be granted. The delay in filing the form was considered a technical error.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case on merits before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that the assessee claimed the deposits were from cash sales duly recorded in books and offered to tax. However, the Assessing Officer did not verify these claims. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the communication gap as a 'sufficient cause'. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding it bona fide and not due to mala fide intention. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the Section 54B deduction claim, emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of reassessment proceedings by a non-jurisdictional AO was without jurisdiction. The notice under section 148A was not served at the correct address as per the PAN database, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the remand report and the assessee's rejoinder, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned appellate order was set aside.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenditure on merits due to lack of evidence and genuineness. However, it directed that the additions be reduced to the extent the written-back commission was offered to tax in a subsequent year to avoid double taxation.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenditure on merits due to lack of evidence and genuineness. However, it directed that the additions be reduced to the extent the written-back commission was offered to tax in a subsequent year to avoid double taxation.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) for de novo adjudication. The AO was directed to provide complete DGFT data to the assessee for reconciliation, and the assessee was directed to provide its reconciled data.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by summarily rejecting the additional evidence without a proper inquiry, especially since the assessment was ex parte. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition solely based on the director offering commission income. The assessee failed to discharge its onus of explaining the source of credits and identifying beneficiaries.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged her onus by furnishing necessary documents to satisfy the requirements of Section 68. The AO's addition was based on surmises and conjectures without making independent inquiries from the lender company.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of reassessment proceedings by a non-jurisdictional AO was without jurisdiction. The notice under section 148A was not served at the correct address as per the PAN database, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the departmental appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT Circular. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without adjudicating on the merits.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to substantiate the delay. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that making a separate disallowance under Section 14A without adjusting the assessee's suo motu disallowance results in double disallowance, which is not permissible. The AO's approach was found to be unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge its onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share capital and premium transactions. The evidence provided was deemed insufficient to overcome the surrounding circumstances indicating a lack of capacity and genuineness.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition solely based on the director offering commission income. The assessee failed to discharge its onus of explaining the source of credits and identifying beneficiaries.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to a deposit. However, due to ineffective compliance before the lower appellate authority and the need for proper adjudication of the donation issue, the case was remanded for fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had subsequently filed the application for renewal under Section 12AB, which was pending adjudication, the Section 80G approval should be reconsidered after the decision on the Section 12AB application. The issue of the irrevocability clause was also noted as having been addressed by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed against a non-existent entity, due to a prior amalgamation, is without jurisdiction and therefore void ab initio. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition solely based on the director offering commission income. The assessee failed to discharge its onus of explaining the source of credits and identifying beneficiaries.

The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10B is a procedural irregularity and not a bar to claiming exemption under Section 11, especially when the form is available during the assessment or appellate stage. The delay in filing Form 10B was condoned, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition solely based on the director offering commission income. The assessee failed to discharge its onus of explaining the source of credits and identifying beneficiaries.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenditure on merits due to lack of evidence and genuineness. However, it directed that the additions be reduced to the extent the written-back commission was offered to tax in a subsequent year to avoid double taxation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, stating it was not intentional. It held that mentioning the wrong clause of the First Proviso to section 80G(5) is not fatal and directed the CIT(E) to reconsider the application afresh on merits.

The Tribunal held that denying the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses whose statements formed the basis of the addition was a violation of natural justice. The assessment order was set aside, and the issue was restored to the AO for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness of the share subscribing companies, and the genuineness of the transactions. Relying on various judicial precedents, the Tribunal deleted the addition made by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 on 13/07/2022 for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation, following Supreme Court and High Court decisions. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of commission expenditure on merits due to lack of evidence and genuineness. However, it directed that the additions be reduced to the extent the written-back commission was offered to tax in a subsequent year to avoid double taxation.

The Tribunal upheld the AO's action in adopting the FIFO method for computing capital gains, rejecting the assessee's average cost method. However, it directed a recomputation of the Section 14A disallowance, limiting it to the exempt income earned and considering only investments that yielded such income.

The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption was premature as it was contingent on the outcome of the condonation petition. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh after considering the decision of the CIT(E).

The Tribunal found that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after reconsidering the condonation of delay.

The Tribunal held that the franchisee fee paid to BCCI is revenue expenditure, following its own previous decisions and those of coordinate benches. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances for various expenses, finding them to be business-related or properly accounted for.

The Tribunal held that the franchisee fee paid to BCCI is revenue expenditure, following its own previous decisions and those of coordinate benches. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances for various expenses, finding them to be business-related or properly accounted for.

The Tribunal held that the franchisee fee paid to BCCI is revenue expenditure, following its own previous decisions and those of coordinate benches. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowances for various expenses, finding them to be business-related or properly accounted for.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) on the grounds of bonafide reliance on professional advice and active pursuit of rectification. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal found the facts and circumstances to be similar to a previous assessment year where identical issues were adjudicated. Following its prior findings, the Tribunal decided the issue mutatis mutandis.

The Tribunal found that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after reconsidering the condonation of delay.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had already declared a GP higher than the benchmark recommended by the Task Force report and also higher than the GP on normal transactions, no further addition was warranted for AY 2009-10. For AY 2011-12, the addition was to be recomputed based on the GP declared.

The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) erred in not properly considering the evidence of purchases and the correlation with sales. The matter was restored to the AO for verification of the gross profit computation and determination of the appropriate addition on account of alleged non-genuine purchases.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission regarding the duplication of appeals. Finding no impediment, the Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the present appeal.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on uncorroborated third-party electronic data, without establishing a direct nexus with the assessee and in violation of the principles of natural justice (denial of cross-examination), are unsustainable in law.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), finding no fault in restricting the addition to 5% of the bogus purchases. No new facts or contrary judgments were presented by the Revenue.

The Tribunal found that the notice under Section 148 was indeed issued beyond the permissible time limit. Consequently, all subsequent actions taken in the reassessment proceedings were deemed void ab initio.