ITAT Mumbai Judgments — June 2026

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO based solely on WhatsApp chats and third-party statements without corroborative evidence or an opportunity for cross-examination was not sustainable. The assessee's business was in cosmetics, not jewelry as suggested by the chats.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's explanation reasonable. The Tribunal set aside the addition and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to present evidence.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued without specifying whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars is invalid. Following a jurisdictional High Court decision, the Tribunal quashed the penalty notice and the consequent penalty order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the source of the cash deposits, providing names of customers and relevant invoices. The AO's addition was based on suspicion without disproving the assessee's evidence.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were valid. However, it found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of genuine transactions, including SEBI's revocation of an interim order against preferential allottees. The Tribunal deleted the additions made under Sections 68 and 69C.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing bonafide reasons and the need to advance substantial justice. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the addition based on the profit element of the disputed purchases, as the assessee's sales were not disputed and books of account were not rejected. The addition was restricted to the estimated gross profit rate.

The Tribunal held that the receipts were neither royalty nor FTS, following a consistent line of decisions in the assessee's own case for multiple preceding assessment years. The Tribunal noted that the factual position remained unchanged and the services provided were a standard facility without significant human intervention.

The Tribunal held that since the additions on which the penalty was imposed were deleted and confirmed by higher authorities, the penalty could not survive. Similarly, since the unsecured loans were accepted as genuine, the interest paid on them could not be disallowed.

The Tribunal held that since the additions on which the penalty was imposed were deleted and confirmed by higher authorities, the penalty could not survive. Similarly, since the unsecured loans were accepted as genuine, the interest paid on them could not be disallowed.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year in question, there was no express restriction denying rebate under Section 87A for tax on short-term capital gains. The Tribunal noted that subsequent amendments introduced such restrictions prospectively, supporting the view that they were not applicable earlier.

The Tribunal held that market data recharge receipts are not taxable as royalty, following its own prior decisions. Similarly, reimbursements for seconded employees are not to be treated as Fees for Included Services/Fees for Technical Services, as per higher appellate authority decisions.

The Tribunal held that the transaction was an extinguishment of rights in an old flat in lieu of a new flat, which constitutes a transfer of tenancy rights. Any income arising from this should be treated as capital gains, not income from other sources. The addition made under Section 56(2)(x) was therefore deleted.

The Tribunal found that the DVO adopted inconsistent rates for valuation and did not properly account for car parking spaces. The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was not warranted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 5277 days, holding that the assessee had explained sufficient cause. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a de novo adjudication on the merits of the grounds raised.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) as the escaped income was less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Consequently, the notice and all subsequent actions were deemed void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to bring any adverse evidence against the assessee or their broker regarding price rigging. Since the assessee provided documentary evidence of genuine transactions, the additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 for both assessment years were beyond the prescribed timelines as per the Supreme Court's rulings in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and impugned orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had duly accounted for the receipts in its books of accounts and the AO's action resulted in double addition of the same income. The addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 for both assessment years were beyond the prescribed timelines as per the Supreme Court's rulings in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and impugned orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation losses on hedging contracts are allowable business losses, overturning the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow them. Regarding un-reconciled income, the issue was restored to the AO for de novo examination.

The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 for both assessment years were beyond the prescribed timelines as per the Supreme Court's rulings in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and impugned orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was time-barred as it was issued after the expiry of the limitation period. Consequently, the assessment order passed pursuant to this invalid notice was also quashed.

The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 for both assessment years were beyond the prescribed timelines as per the Supreme Court's rulings in Ashish Agarwal and Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and impugned orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) without adjudicating the issues on merits violated the principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that CCDs cannot be treated as equity and the interest incurred on them cannot be disallowed by re-characterizing them as equity. Following various High Court and Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition made on account of interest expenses.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not independently examine the issues and that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the amount received for granting development rights constitutes consideration for the transfer of a capital asset and is chargeable under the head 'Capital Gains', not 'Income from Other Sources'. The claim for exemption under Section 54EC was directed to be allowed.

The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation losses on hedging contracts are allowable business losses, overturning the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow them. Regarding un-reconciled income, the issue was restored to the AO for de novo examination.

The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation losses on hedging contracts are allowable business losses, overturning the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow them. Regarding un-reconciled income, the issue was restored to the AO for de novo examination.

The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation losses on hedging contracts are allowable business losses, overturning the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow them. Regarding un-reconciled income, the issue was restored to the AO for de novo examination.

The Tribunal held that foreign exchange fluctuation losses on hedging contracts are allowable business losses, overturning the CIT(A)'s decision to disallow them. Regarding un-reconciled income, the issue was restored to the AO for de novo examination.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO) for a fresh assessment. The AO was directed to provide a fair opportunity to the assessee to present her case.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A), directing a liberal view on condoning the delay. The CIT(A) was instructed to decide the appeal on its merits, considering the facts of the case and a previous similar order for AY 2016-17.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus by providing complete transaction details through a SEBI registered broker on a recognized stock exchange. Since no adverse evidence or independent investigation was conducted by the revenue to link the assessee or his broker with price manipulation, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the AO's additions lacked substance, were based on surmises, and failed to bring on record material evidence to support the conclusions. The Tribunal noted that transactions through registered brokers and banking channels could not be treated as bogus solely on an investigation report.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not independently examine the issues and that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not get an effective opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) due to an ex-parte dismissal. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the AO. It found that the AO's additions were based on general investigation reports without direct evidence implicating the assessee, and the assessee had offered the nominal profits from these transactions as business income.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions related to sundry debtors/creditors and unexplained loans/advances without proper verification. The Tribunal restored these issues to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the revenue's grounds on these points.

The Tribunal held that the addition was solely based on the statement of the builder and lacked corroborating incriminating material. Following previous decisions on similar facts, the Tribunal deleted the addition.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order passed without issuing a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Act is void ab initio and a nullity. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal allowed the deduction for scientific research expenses under Section 37(1) to the extent of the amount incurred, even if not eligible for weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB). The disallowance under Section 14A was partly allowed with similar directions as in the lead case.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to specify under which clause of Section 270A(9) the assessee's case fell for levying penalty at the higher rate of 200%. Therefore, the penalty for misreporting could not be sustained.

The Tribunal allowed the deduction for scientific research expenses under Section 37(1) to the extent of the amount incurred, even if not eligible for weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB). The disallowance under Section 14A was partly allowed with similar directions as in the lead case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) considering the assessee was pursuing alternative remedies and the case was not considered on merits. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration of the taxable income.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal against the ex-parte assessment order had already been set aside and the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh order. Consequently, the penalty order, which was based on the quantum assessment, was no longer sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal without considering the merits and principles of natural justice. The matter was remanded back for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the permissible limitation period, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajiv Bansal. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the transactions were genuine as they were supported by documentary evidence like contract notes, Demat statements, and banking records. The Revenue failed to establish any nexus between the assessee and alleged operators or demonstrate that the funds were undisclosed income.