ITAT Mumbai Judgments — May 2026

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 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 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 condoned the delay, finding the assessee's reasons for delay to be sufficient cause. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication after reconsidering the condonation request.

The Tribunal deleted the addition for fixed deposits as they pertained to earlier years. It dismissed the claims for interest and depreciation against interest income, citing lack of business income and nexus. The addition for unsecured loans was deleted as the assessee furnished sufficient evidence for identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness.

The Tribunal held that a lawful claim cannot be denied due to incorrect section mention if the assessee is eligible. The lower authorities did not properly verify the claim under section 35AC.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 on 27/07/2022 was beyond the limitation period as per the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 of the Income Tax Act does not contemplate additions based on the difference between the issue price and fair market value of shares, especially when the investment is from a non-resident group concern. The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench decision that stated valuation is not relevant for determining the genuineness of a transaction under Section 68.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 115BBE(2) restricting set-off of losses was prospective. Therefore, for the assessment year 2010-11, the assessee was entitled to set off business losses against income assessed under Section 68.

The Tribunal held that prior period income adjusted against prior period expenses should be eligible for exemption under Section 10(46). It also held that 'other income', including interest on HBA and minor incidental receipts, were eligible for exemption under Section 10(46) as they were intrinsically connected to the assessee's regulatory functions.

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 restored the issue of cash deposits to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, considering the assessee's claim and the sister concern's settlement application. The issue of disallowance of professional fees was also restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of TDS compliance and calculation of disallowance.

The Tribunal restored the issue of cash deposits to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, considering the assessee's claim and the sister concern's settlement application. The issue of disallowance of professional fees was also restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of TDS compliance and calculation of disallowance.

The Tribunal restored the issue of cash deposits to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, considering the assessee's claim and the sister concern's settlement application. The issue of disallowance of professional fees was also restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of TDS compliance and calculation of disallowance.

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 notice issued under Section 148 was indeed time-barred. It also found that the approval for the notice was not obtained from the correct specified authority as required by Section 151, thus vitiating the assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's grounds of appeal were not properly substantiated with necessary details and evidence. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in initiating revisionary proceedings under Section 263. The Assessing Officer's order allowing the claim was not erroneous, especially when supported by coordinate bench decisions, and the issue was debatable.

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 held that the addition under Section 56(2)(x) was not sustainable if the property was considered stock-in-trade. It also noted that the assessee was not given an opportunity to object to the District Valuation Report and that the valuation did not consider a material fact affecting the property's value.

The Tribunal held that the annual franchisee fee paid for participation in the IPL tournament for a specific year is revenue expenditure. It found no enduring benefit was created for the assessee, distinguishing it from cases where capital expenditure is incurred.

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 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 the lower authorities had not properly verified the primary facts and documentary evidence. Therefore, to ensure substantial justice and uphold principles of natural justice, the matter was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that denying exemption without deciding the pending condonation petition was premature. The allowability of exemption is contingent upon the condonation of the delay in filing the audit report.

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 CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal without considering the assessee's adjournment request, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to the profit element embedded in the alleged bogus purchases, citing the jurisdictional High Court's precedent. The addition was limited to a 3% gross profit rate on the impugned purchases.

The Tribunal held that filing Form No. 10 before the completion of assessment proceedings satisfies the statutory requirement for Section 11(2) exemption, following the jurisdictional High Court's precedent. The matter was restored to the AO for verification of the purpose of accumulation.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly examined the assessee's submissions regarding the valuation of closing stock using the Weighted Average Cost formula. The matter was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an opportunity to explain the delay before the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) to decide afresh after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, following a similar order in the assessee's own case. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the penalty, agreeing that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of the undisclosed income as required by Section 271AAA(2)(ii). A general assertion of a 'common pool of funds' without documentary evidence was insufficient.

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 held that the notice under section 148 was issued without jurisdiction and was time-barred. The reassessment proceedings and the consequential assessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that procedural laws are handmaids of justice and substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The CIT(A)'s refusal to condone the delay was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that procedural laws are handmaids of justice and substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The CIT(A)'s refusal to condone the delay was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission regarding the Advance Pricing Agreement covering the assessment year. Consequently, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal allowed Ground No. 1 (Management Fees) by following its own consistent decisions for earlier years, holding that separate benchmarking of management fees was not required or that the existing TNMM analysis was acceptable. Ground No. 2 (Regional Services) was dismissed as the assessee did not press it. Other grounds were either remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification or allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that procedural laws are handmaids of justice and substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The CIT(A)'s refusal to condone the delay was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that procedural laws are handmaids of justice and substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. The CIT(A)'s refusal to condone the delay was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was flawed as it relied on a revision order that was subsequently quashed. Since the DAPE was remunerated at arm's length and the assessee had voluntarily offered a certain profit attribution, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals for non-prosecution as the assessee failed to appear or file submissions despite multiple opportunities. Liberty was granted to seek recalling of the order by substantiating reasons for non-appearance.

The Tribunal held that co-operative banks are primarily co-operative societies, and interest earned from them is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). This decision is supported by numerous High Court and Tribunal rulings.

The Tribunal held that co-operative banks are primarily co-operative societies, and interest earned from them is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). This decision is supported by numerous High Court and Tribunal rulings.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals for non-prosecution as the assessee failed to appear or file submissions despite multiple opportunities. Liberty was granted to seek recalling of the order by substantiating reasons for non-appearance.

The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit. The assessee was directed to be more vigilant in future regarding timely compliance.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's failure to comply with the CIT(A) but recognized the substantial nature of the issues involving capital gains and Section 50C. Therefore, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal allowed the admission of additional evidence, including ledger accounts from preceding years and bank statements, which suggested the loans were not received in the year under consideration. The issue was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication.