ITAT Mumbai Judgments — June 2026

The Tribunal, following its own prior decisions and those of higher courts, allowed the assessee's grounds related to transfer pricing adjustments. The Tribunal found that the ad-hoc 10% mark-up by the TPO was not justified and deleted it. Other grounds were also decided in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench in the assessee's own case for earlier years had deleted the entire addition. The Tribunal found no distinguishing facts and followed the precedent, quashing the CIT(A)'s order and directing the deletion of additions.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction under Section 80-GGA read with Section 35AC and exemption under Section 10(34). It was also held that tax should be levied at normal slab rates, not the maximum marginal rate.

The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench in the assessee's own case for earlier years had deleted the entire addition. The Tribunal found no distinguishing facts and followed the precedent, quashing the CIT(A)'s order and directing the deletion of additions.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of sundry creditors under Section 68 was unsustainable as creditors were not identified and supporting evidence was not disproved. The disallowance under Section 14A was restricted to the amount of exempt income earned.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus of proving the genuineness of the unsecured loan by providing evidence of repayment through banking channels. The repayment was not disputed by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that since the substantive relief sought in the appeals (renewal of registration and approval) has already been granted by the CIT(E) through subsequent orders, the appeals against the original rejection orders have become infructuous. The Tribunal noted that the challenge to the conditions in the subsequent orders was not part of the present appeals.

The Tribunal held that the gold ornaments constituted fully accounted stock-in-trade, duly recorded in the assessee's books of account and stock registers. The documentary evidence, including audited financial statements and bank transactions, supported the genuineness of the stock.

The Tribunal held that since the substantive relief sought in the appeals (renewal of registration and approval) has already been granted by the CIT(E) through subsequent orders, the appeals against the original rejection orders have become infructuous. The Tribunal noted that the challenge to the conditions in the subsequent orders was not part of the present appeals.

The Tribunal held that the order under Section 148A(d) and the notice under Section 148 were bad in law because the approval was obtained from an incorrect authority as per Section 151(ii) of the Act. Consequently, these proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently proved the nexus between the loans borrowed and the loans given to M/s Milton Lifecare Private Ltd. The Revenue failed to provide material to dispute the utilization of interest-bearing funds for advancing interest-bearing loans.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO under Section 69 was unsustainable. The Tribunal found that the transaction was duly evidenced by documents and that the AO had not conducted a meaningful inquiry to disprove it.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) conflated the statutory character of the assessee, regulatory obligations under the MPT Act, and his own assessment of affordability. The CIT(E) cannot substitute his own standards for the law, and the assessee's charitable status is determined by its purpose and application of income, not by its scale or efficiency.

The Tribunal held that since substantial part payments were made through banking channels in pursuance of the agreement, the assessee is eligible for the benefit of the First & Second Proviso to Section 56(2)(vii). The lower authorities erred in ignoring these payments and confirming the addition.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should not exceed the exempt income. Regarding the sale of office premises, it was held that if the asset is part of a block of assets, Section 50(2) applies, and capital gains do not arise if sale proceeds are less than the Written Down Value (WDV).

The Tribunal held that the AO had not disputed the assessee's sales and had relied solely on third-party information without independent verification. Following a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for a different assessment year, the disallowance on purchases was restricted.

The Tribunal held that the additions made on account of unexplained investment and notional interest were unsustainable as they were not based on cogent evidence. The Tribunal noted the denial of transactions by both parties and the lack of corroborative material from the assessee's premises.

The Tribunal held that the additions made on account of unexplained investment and notional interest were unsustainable as they were not based on cogent evidence. The Tribunal noted the denial of transactions by both parties and the lack of corroborative material from the assessee's premises.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should not exceed the exempt income. Regarding the sale of office premises, it was held that if the asset is part of a block of assets, Section 50(2) applies, and capital gains do not arise if sale proceeds are less than the Written Down Value (WDV).

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should not exceed the exempt income. Regarding the sale of office premises, it was held that if the asset is part of a block of assets, Section 50(2) applies, and capital gains do not arise if sale proceeds are less than the Written Down Value (WDV).

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should not exceed the exempt income. Regarding the sale of office premises, it was held that if the asset is part of a block of assets, Section 50(2) applies, and capital gains do not arise if sale proceeds are less than the Written Down Value (WDV).

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should not exceed the exempt income. Regarding the sale of office premises, it was held that if the asset is part of a block of assets, Section 50(2) applies, and capital gains do not arise if sale proceeds are less than the Written Down Value (WDV).

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) conflated the statutory character of medical relief, regulatory obligations under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, and his own assessment of affordability. The CIT(E) cannot substitute his own standards for the law, and the institution's charitable status is determined by its purpose and application of income, not its scale or efficiency.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should not exceed the exempt income. Regarding the sale of office premises, it was held that if the asset is part of a block of assets, Section 50(2) applies, and capital gains do not arise if sale proceeds are less than the Written Down Value (WDV).

The Tribunal held that the addition was not justified as the loans and advances appeared on the asset side of the assessee's balance sheet, and the source of funds was explained by the liability side. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should not exceed the exempt income. Regarding the sale of office premises, it was held that if the asset is part of a block of assets, Section 50(2) applies, and capital gains do not arise if sale proceeds are less than the Written Down Value (WDV).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing a bonafide belief and a similar decision by a co-ordinate bench. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order rejecting the renewal of registration under section 12AB was unsustainable on facts and in law. The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed filed an application under section 12A(1)(ac)(v) after amending its objects, and the CIT(E) had granted approval in Form No.10AD on 18.04.2024. This approval was on record and was also furnished during the renewal proceedings, dislodging the factual premise of the CIT(E)'s order. The Tribunal noted that there were no adverse findings regarding the charitable nature of the objects, the genuineness of activities, or any violation of material laws. Relying on the Bombay High Court's decision in Chamber of Tax Consultants v. CIT(E), the Tribunal stated that the Commissioner's inquiry at the registration stage is circumscribed by statutory parameters, focusing on charitable objects and genuine activities, and peripheral objections should not lead to denial unless they directly impact statutory conditions. Since the factual premise of non-compliance with section 12A(1)(ac)(v) was found to be incorrect, the rejection of renewal under section 12AB was set aside, and the CIT(E) was directed to grant renewal. Consequently, the rejection of approval under section 80G, which was consequential to the 12AB rejection, was also set aside, and the CIT(E) was directed to grant approval under section 80G. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of a careful and holistic consideration of the record, noting that denial of registration on a factually contradicted premise defeats the statutory purpose.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order rejecting the renewal of registration under section 12AB was unsustainable on facts and in law. The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed filed an application under section 12A(1)(ac)(v) after amending its objects, and the CIT(E) had granted approval in Form No.10AD on 18.04.2024. This approval was on record and was also furnished during the renewal proceedings, dislodging the factual premise of the CIT(E)'s order. The Tribunal noted that there were no adverse findings regarding the charitable nature of the objects, the genuineness of activities, or any violation of material laws. Relying on the Bombay High Court's decision in Chamber of Tax Consultants v. CIT(E), the Tribunal stated that the Commissioner's inquiry at the registration stage is circumscribed by statutory parameters, focusing on charitable objects and genuine activities, and peripheral objections should not lead to denial unless they directly impact statutory conditions. Since the factual premise of non-compliance with section 12A(1)(ac)(v) was found to be incorrect, the rejection of renewal under section 12AB was set aside, and the CIT(E) was directed to grant renewal. Consequently, the rejection of approval under section 80G, which was consequential to the 12AB rejection, was also set aside, and the CIT(E) was directed to grant approval under section 80G. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of a careful and holistic consideration of the record, noting that denial of registration on a factually contradicted premise defeats the statutory purpose.

The Tribunal found that insufficiency of stamp duty does not invalidate a document, as the Stamp Act provides for penalties. Greater importance should be given to the substance of the matter over technical defects.

The Tribunal found that the DVO's report estimated the property value only slightly higher than the assessee's declared value. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for verification and to allow appropriate relief to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) had not verified the assessee's new stand regarding the secured loan. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for de novo verification and adjudication.

The Tribunal found that documentary evidence was indeed submitted and that the CIT(A) had not properly examined the factual aspect of stamp duty valuation as of the allotment date. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of sundry creditors under Section 68 was unsustainable as creditors were not identified and supporting evidence was not disproved. The disallowance under Section 14A was restricted to the amount of exempt income earned.

The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench in the assessee's own case for earlier years had deleted the entire addition. The Tribunal found no distinguishing facts and followed the precedent, quashing the CIT(A)'s order and directing the deletion of additions.

The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench in the assessee's own case for earlier years had deleted the entire addition. The Tribunal found no distinguishing facts and followed the precedent, quashing the CIT(A)'s order and directing the deletion of additions.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10, being a procedural irregularity, should be condoned to advance the object of charitable exemptions. The CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal in limine after dealing with merits was also set aside.

The Tribunal held that the breakup of business advances was not 'additional evidence' under Rule 46A as it was a clarification of figures already on record and part of the lenders' audited financial statements. The CIT(A) acted within his powers under Section 250(4) to conduct an independent inquiry.

The Tribunal held that the penalties cannot survive as the additions on which they were based have been set aside for de novo adjudication. Therefore, the penalty orders are set aside, and fresh proceedings can be initiated if warranted after the fresh assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's Cross Objection, finding sufficient cause for both. The appeal and cross-objection were admitted for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that specific incriminating material, corroborated by statements, directly linked the transaction to the assessee's family. The absence of cross-examination did not invalidate the addition as the addition was based on seized documents and corroborating statements, not solely on oral testimony.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 73 days in filing the appeal and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to cooperate for expeditious disposal.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to remit the matter back to the CIT(E) for a fresh consideration of the application. The CIT(E) was directed to consider the documents filed by the assessee and provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that Section 50 creates a legal fiction only for the computation of gain and does not alter the character of the underlying asset. Therefore, long-term capital losses can be set off against gains arising from the transfer of a depreciable asset, even if computed under Section 50.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A), finding that the change in accounting method was justified due to the financial distress of the company that had not paid the interest. The Tribunal noted that the AO did not provide material to disprove the legitimacy of the change.

The Tribunal directed the exclusion of two comparable companies, Axis and Inmacs, from the transfer pricing analysis due to their lack of functional comparability with the assessee's services. Consequently, the transfer pricing adjustment was to be recomputed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to explain the source of investments before the AO and DRP. To allow the assessee an opportunity to explain these investments, the assessment order was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the reassessment was initiated on fresh information and rejected the assessee's contention regarding borrowed satisfaction. However, considering that the sales were not disputed and payments were made through cheques, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, following the ratio of Mohommad Haji Adam (supra) to estimate profit on alleged bogus purchases.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition v Mst. Katiji And Others - 167 ITR 471 (SC), stating that refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the threshold. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delayed filing and failed to adjudicate the issues raised on merits. This dismissal without deciding the appeal on merits was considered contrary to the principles of natural justice. Since the assessee's legal heir requested an opportunity for a de novo assessment by the Assessing Officer, and the revenue did not oppose this request, the Tribunal decided to remand the entire matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer is directed to apply the principles of natural justice and afford sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The ground of appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition forming the basis of the penalty was set aside and restored for de novo adjudication by a Coordinate Bench, the penalty cannot survive independently. The Assessing Officer was directed to cancel the impugned penalty for the present.