ITAT Mumbai Judgments — May 2026

The Tribunal held that the enhanced tolerance limit of 10% under Section 56(2)(x)(b)(B) is curative and beneficial, and thus applicable retrospectively. The difference of 7.44% was well within this limit.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte 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 held that since the CIT(E) had subsequently granted registration under sections 12AB and 80G, the grounds raised in the appeals challenging the earlier rejection orders had become infructuous. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition, finding no cogent evidence of actual commission payment beyond the regular brokerage already accounted for. The Tribunal noted that assumptions without supporting material cannot justify invoking Section 69C.

The Tribunal held that both the assessment and appellate orders were passed ex parte and that the assessee had raised substantial issues regarding the validity of reopening and principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the appeal as filed was not maintainable because the grounds of appeal in Form 36 did not match the authorization memo. The authorization was for Section 14A, but the grounds in Form 36 were for Section 68, and vice versa.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that derivative transactions constitute the assessee's sole business activity. Therefore, profits and losses from these transactions should be treated as a single composite business and allowed to be set off against each other.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271D could not be sustained as the reassessment proceedings, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been quashed by a coordinate bench. The Tribunal found no independent incriminating material to support the cash loan transactions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient and bona fide cause. It held that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that Section 69A was not attracted because the loan transactions, though alleged to be accommodation entries, were recorded in the assessee's books of account. Therefore, the addition made under Section 69A was deleted.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to produce crucial cash records, the claim of business receipts in a cash-intensive trade cannot be ignored without verification. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for a final opportunity to substantiate the explanation.

The Tribunal held that a liberal and justice-oriented approach is required for condoning delays, especially when there is no deliberate negligence. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay to be bona fide and noted the contradictory approach of the CIT(A) compared to a previous assessment year.

The Tribunal found reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). It held that the assessee's failure to mention Section 12A registration was an inadvertent error, and the trust is eligible for exemption under Sections 11 and 12.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the Hon'ble Supreme Court's directions regarding condonation of delay during the COVID-19 pandemic. The assessee was granted one more opportunity before the CIT(A) to reconsider the limitation issue.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s reliance on certain judgments was misplaced as they did not cover off-market transactions. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) had not conducted factual verification regarding the non-confrontation of evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the addition and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application solely on the ground of delay in filing was legally unsustainable, especially for long-standing institutions. The Tribunal followed previous coordinate bench decisions on this matter.

The Tribunal held that since the CIT(E) had subsequently granted registration under sections 12AB and 80G, the grounds raised in the appeals challenging the earlier rejection orders had become infructuous. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly set aside the rejection of books of accounts as the discrepancies were reconciled, primarily due to the exclusion of VAT. Consequently, the protective addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- was also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the deletion of addition made on account of adjustment under Section 115JB(2C) by the CIT(A) was correct, following a coordinate bench decision. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal found that the AO had not recorded the necessary satisfaction for making the disallowance, thus upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion.

The Tribunal held that rural agricultural lands, excluded from the definition of capital assets, are not considered 'property' for the purpose of Section 56(2)(x). The assessee's intention to use the land for a solar project or its classification as fixed assets does not alter its character as rural agricultural land.

The Tribunal held that the deletion of addition made on account of adjustment under Section 115JB(2C) by the CIT(A) was correct, following a coordinate bench decision. Regarding Section 14A, the Tribunal found that the AO had not recorded the necessary satisfaction for making the disallowance, thus upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals. It upheld the TP addition for back office support services but deleted the addition for comfort letters. Other grounds related to disallowances of expenses and foreign tax credits were either dismissed or partly allowed, with issues restored to the AO for examination.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals. It upheld the TP addition for back office support services but deleted the addition for comfort letters. Other grounds related to disallowances of expenses and foreign tax credits were either dismissed or partly allowed, with issues restored to the AO for examination.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the ad-hoc disallowance on business promotion expenses, finding no cogent material or independent inquiry by the AO to substantiate the disallowance. The expenditures were considered routine business practices.

The Tribunal held that while the entire cash deposits could not be treated as unexplained as they were recorded in the books, deficiencies in sale bills and lack of complete evidence justified an estimated addition. They upheld an addition of 20% of the total deposits, amounting to Rs. 1,20,63,740/-, to account for unverifiable sales.

The Tribunal held that while the entire cash deposits could not be treated as unexplained as they were recorded in the books, deficiencies in sale bills and lack of complete evidence justified an estimated addition. They upheld an addition of 20% of the total deposits, amounting to Rs. 1,20,63,740/-, to account for unverifiable sales.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals. It upheld the TP addition for back office support services but deleted the addition for comfort letters. Other grounds related to disallowances of expenses and foreign tax credits were either dismissed or partly allowed, with issues restored to the AO for examination.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeals. It upheld the TP addition for back office support services but deleted the addition for comfort letters. Other grounds related to disallowances of expenses and foreign tax credits were either dismissed or partly allowed, with issues restored to the AO for examination.

The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) for a fresh decision. This was done to uphold the principles of natural justice, as the assessee claimed non-receipt of the notice.

The Tribunal decided that since the assessee did not comply with any notices or participate in the assessment proceedings, the ex-parte assessment and penalty were validly initiated. The appeals were dismissed based on the lack of assessee's participation.

The Tribunal decided that since the assessee did not comply with any notices or participate in the assessment proceedings, the ex-parte assessment and penalty were validly initiated. The appeals were dismissed based on the lack of assessee's participation.

The Tribunal held that the variation between the purchase consideration and stamp duty valuation was approximately 6.45%, which falls within the permissible tolerance limit of 10%. Therefore, no addition under Section 56(2)(x) was legally sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the assessee's adjournment applications and without granting an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) failed to consider the merits of the case regarding the exemption of voluntary donations.

The Tribunal found that adding back the interest income, which was already netted off against interest expenses, constituted a double addition. Regarding the disallowance of interest on borrowed funds, the Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had not examined the issue in light of relevant case law.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, with a cost of Rs. 5,000 imposed on the assessee.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, which was crucial for verifying the nature of the income. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without a proper adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A) correctly found that the entities were not associated enterprises and no adjustment was made to the transactions, the penalty under section 271G was not attracted. Therefore, the appeals by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and not applicable to TDS periods prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy of late fees was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of late fees under Section 234E, was prospective and not applicable to TDS periods prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy of late fees was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed after the expiry of the one-month period from the end of the month in which the DRP directions were received. Therefore, the order is barred by limitation and void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and not applicable to TDS periods prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy of late fees was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Act, which enabled the levy of fees under Section 234E, was prospective and not applicable to TDS periods prior to June 1, 2015. Therefore, the levy of late fees was not sustainable for those periods.

The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption under Section 11 was not justified as the audit report was uploaded on the departmental portal before the due date. Procedural defects should not defeat substantive claims of exemption, especially considering CBDT Circular No. 2/2020.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient evidence of the creditors' identity, genuineness of transactions, and creditworthiness. The Assessing Officer's objections were based on probing successive layers of source beyond statutory requirements.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had granted relief without allowing the AO an opportunity to contest the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside to allow the AO to verify the disclosure of bank accounts and the reason for the NIL closing balance in the preceding year.

The assessee's authorized representative requested to withdraw the present appeal. Considering this request, the tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that once the quantum additions are deleted, no penalty can survive. The Department's appeal against the deletion of the penalty was dismissed as the basis for the penalty no longer existed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution as the assessee failed to appear and represent its case despite opportunities. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recalling of the order by substantiating reasons for non-compliance.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's admission under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme is significant, the AO did not independently verify the documentary evidence. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for independent verification of the genuineness of the transactions.

The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A) correctly found that the entities were not associated enterprises and no adjustment was made to the transactions, the penalty under section 271G was not attracted. Therefore, the appeals by the Revenue were dismissed.