ITAT Mumbai Judgments — May 2026

The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided further details and evidence before it, which required verification by the AO. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for re-examination of the source of funds.

The Tribunal, noting the contentious issues and the assessee's non-compliance before the lower appellate authority, decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a proper adjudication. This was granted as a last opportunity, subject to a deposit.

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be sustained solely on the basis of third-party statements or documents without corroborative evidence. The AO failed to provide an opportunity for cross-examination and relied on uncertified electronic records.

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, deleting the disallowance for salary and wages, allowing 50% of rent and advertisement expenses, and directing the AO to recompute the taxable income based on these modifications.

The Tribunal held that the amendment making dividend from mutual funds taxable was applicable from Assessment Year 2021-22 onwards, not for Assessment Year 2020-21. Therefore, the addition/disallowance made by the CPC and upheld by the Commissioner was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation. This was based on the concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court in the Rajeev Bansal case, stating that notices issued after April 1, 2021, for AY 2015-16 should be dropped.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) was unsustainable as the assessee had sought adjournments and subsequently complied. The penalty under Section 270A was also deleted, finding the assessee's explanation for the computational error to be bona fide and covered by exceptions in Section 270A(6).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the principle of substantial justice. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment to allow the assessee to substantiate the cash deposits.

The Tribunal held that the limitation period for filing a rectification application should be counted from the date of communication of the order, not the date of the order itself. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) was unsustainable as the assessee had sought adjournments and subsequently complied. The penalty under Section 270A was also deleted, finding the assessee's explanation for the computational error to be bona fide and covered by exceptions in Section 270A(6).

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It directed the AO to re-compute the deemed annual lettable value by escalating the previous year's rate by 7% annually. Regarding the difference in capital gains, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO for verification of expenses.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's addition on account of ad-hoc commission was based on conjecture and lacked sufficient evidence. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of such additions, following its own prior decisions.

The tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the exempt income. It allowed the claim for bad debts written off as the assessee satisfied the conditions under Section 36(1)(vii) read with Section 36(2). The disallowances for tea/coffee and hotel accommodation were deleted as TDS provisions were not applicable.

The Tribunal held that denial of FTC solely on account of delayed filing of Form No. 67 is not sustainable, as substantive treaty relief cannot be defeated by procedural technicalities. The FTC is allowable subject to verification of foreign tax paid and Indian tax attributable to the income.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the reassessment notice issued on 25.07.2022 for AY 2015-16 was beyond the six-year limitation period. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 69B cannot be made solely on the basis of stamp duty valuation without the assessee failing to discharge its onus. The CIT(A) had deleted the addition, finding that the Assessing Officer erred in making the addition without proper justification.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions forming the basis of the penalty have been restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, the penalty cannot independently survive. Therefore, the penalty order is also restored to the CIT(A) for fresh decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before both the CIT(A) and itself, citing the principle of substantial justice. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case effectively.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum proceedings were restored, the penalty proceedings under Section 270A also could not attain finality and were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. For the penalty under Section 272A(1)(d), the Tribunal found the levy of separate penalties for similar notices excessive and reduced the penalty.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum proceedings were restored, the penalty proceedings under Section 270A also could not attain finality and were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. For the penalty under Section 272A(1)(d), the Tribunal found the levy of separate penalties for similar notices excessive and reduced the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided a plausible explanation supported by documentary evidence, including an affidavit from legal heirs and bank statements of the deceased. The Revenue failed to provide cogent material to disprove the source of funds.

The Tribunal held that penalty under section 270A cannot be levied when the AO accepts the returned income without any additions, and the AO failed to specify the exact limb of under-reporting or misreporting under which the penalty was levied. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the issue of availability and utilization of own funds for advances required factual verification. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, allowing the assessee to submit supporting evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee failed to provide satisfactory and corroborative evidence to substantiate the source of cash payments, despite multiple opportunities.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh decision. This was done to allow the penalty appeal to be decided along with the pending quantum appeal.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 43CA should be interpreted liberally, and once the DVO's valuation replaces the stamp duty valuation, the comparison for the safe harbor should be with the DVO's value. Since the difference between the agreement value and DVO valuation was within the 10% tolerance band, no addition was warranted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus by providing complete documentary evidence for the share transactions, which were delivery-based, routed through banking channels, and supported by STT payments. The Revenue failed to controvert this evidence.

The Tribunal held that sales already credited in the trading account and offered to tax cannot be added again as unexplained money, as it amounts to double taxation. It also found the estimation of GP at 8% to be arbitrary without rejecting the books of account.

The Tribunal held that the additions were unsustainable as they were based solely on uncorroborated third-party material and in violation of the principles of natural justice due to the lack of cross-examination.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It held that Section 41(1) cannot be invoked merely on assumptions or delayed payments, especially when the liability is acknowledged by both parties and reflected in the books.

The Tribunal held that CSR expenditure, while not deductible under Section 37(1), does not automatically disqualify donations from deduction under Section 80G if other conditions are met. The specific exclusions under Section 80G do not cover general CSR donations.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's addition on account of ad-hoc commission was based on conjecture and lacked sufficient evidence. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of such additions, following its own prior decisions.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without affording a proper opportunity to the assessee. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act for AY 2015-16 was barred by limitation. This was based on the concession made by the Revenue before the Supreme Court in the Rajeev Bansal case, stating that notices issued after April 1, 2021, for AY 2015-16 should be dropped.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the principles of natural justice, remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case with documentary evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the principles of natural justice, remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case with documentary evidence.

The Tribunal held that CSR expenditure, while not deductible under Section 37(1), does not automatically disqualify donations from deduction under Section 80G if other conditions are met. The specific exclusions under Section 80G do not cover general CSR donations.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the principles of natural justice, remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case with documentary evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the principles of natural justice, remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case with documentary evidence.

The Tribunal held that issuing a Section 148 notice before obtaining the mandatory approval under Section 151 renders the notice void ab initio. This defect goes to the root of the jurisdiction and cannot be cured.

The Tribunal held that the issue of availability and utilization of own funds for advances required factual verification. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, allowing the assessee to submit supporting evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the principles of natural justice, remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case with documentary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 41(1) was to be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee to prove the genuineness of the creditors. Similarly, the addition under Section 68 for short-term loans and advances was also restored to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the principles of natural justice, remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case with documentary evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the principles of natural justice, remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case with documentary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was invalid because the approval for its issuance was not obtained from the specified authority as required by Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Consequently, the reassessment order was also quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the principles of natural justice, remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case with documentary evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the principles of natural justice, remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case with documentary evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the principles of natural justice, remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case with documentary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the AO made additions solely based on third-party statements without independent inquiry or providing the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine. The assessee had discharged its onus with documentary evidence, which the Revenue failed to rebut.