ITAT Mumbai Judgments — June 2026

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance under section 14A and additions under sections 41(1) and 68. However, it allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the exclusion of SEZ manufacturing profits from MAT computation, following a jurisdictional precedent.

The tribunal held that the rejection of the applications based on a curable procedural defect was unsustainable. The CIT(E) should have allowed the assessee an opportunity to rectify the mistake and decide the applications on merits.

The Tribunal restored both appeals to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to reconsider the applications afresh. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to substantiate its objects and activities, with the CIT(E) directed to provide a fair hearing.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default for not deducting TDS on LTC. This is because the assessee was bound by the interim directions of the Madras High Court, and deducting tax would have amounted to contempt of court.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order, restoring the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee is granted one final opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a fixed place PE or a DAPE in India, thus allowing the benefit of the DTAA. It also ruled that interest on income tax refunds should be taxed as per the DTAA rates.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of genuine purchases and exports, including bank statements, purchase bills, and audit reports. The reassessment proceedings were upheld as valid based on information from a search and recorded statements.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of genuine purchases and exports, including bank statements, purchase bills, and audit reports. The reassessment proceedings were upheld as valid based on information from a search and recorded statements.

The Tribunal held that the DDT rate cannot exceed the rate prescribed under the respective DTAA. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal directed the refund of DDT paid in excess of the rate stipulated in the DTAA.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the AO failed to conduct independent inquiry and relied on general statements from third-party searches. The Tribunal noted that in prior assessment years with similar purchases from the same parties, the AO accepted a 3% addition, and the Revenue did not appeal.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that neither the AO's addition nor the CIT(A)'s deletion could be sustained without a comprehensive factual inquiry. The matter was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot mechanically retain a prima facie adjustment made under Section 143(1)(a) if the issue was subsequently examined and accepted during scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) without any adverse findings. The scrutiny assessment must be an independent adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the DDT rate cannot exceed the rate prescribed under the respective DTAA. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal directed the refund of DDT paid in excess of the rate stipulated in the DTAA.

The Tribunal dismissed the disallowance of advertising expenses, finding that the assessee failed to provide basic details. However, it allowed the deduction for donations, finding that the assessee subsequently provided sufficient evidence of genuineness and disbursement.

The Tribunal restored the issue of short grant of TDS credit and consequential interest under section 244A to the Assessing Officer for verification. It also directed the Assessing Officer to examine and allow set-off of brought forward business losses for certain assessment years.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, emphasizing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The matter was then restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s ex parte decision violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the discrepancy in flat numbers and the exact amount of payments made before registration needed further factual verification. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the issue of short grant of TDS credit and consequential interest under section 244A to the Assessing Officer for verification. It also directed the Assessing Officer to examine and allow set-off of brought forward business losses for certain assessment years.

The Tribunal restored the issue of short grant of TDS credit and consequential interest under section 244A to the Assessing Officer for verification. It also directed the Assessing Officer to examine and allow set-off of brought forward business losses for certain assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the allotment letter did not constitute a 'registered agreement' as required by the first proviso to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) for the benefit of earlier valuation. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was bad in law as it relied solely on the third-party statement without providing the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination. The addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that an addition based solely on a third party's statement from a search, without independent corroboration or an opportunity for cross-examination, cannot be sustained. The principles of natural justice were violated.

The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) did not adequately reconcile the alleged WhatsApp entries with the assessee's books of account. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh examination of the reconciliation and supporting documents.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a fixed place PE or a DAPE in India, thus allowing the benefit of the DTAA. It also ruled that interest on income tax refunds should be taxed as per the DTAA rates.

The tribunal held that the rejection of the applications based on a curable procedural defect was unsustainable. The CIT(E) should have allowed the assessee an opportunity to rectify the mistake and decide the applications on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay due to the peculiar circumstances and the principle of substantial justice. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the addition was made based on material that had been examined by coordinate benches in similar cases and found to be unreliable. Following these precedents, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that while timely filing of returns is a mandatory condition for claiming deduction under Chapter VI-A, the assessee can approach the competent authority under Section 119(2)(b) to seek condonation of delay due to genuine hardship. The Assessing Officer is directed to give effect to the order of the competent authority.

The Tribunal held that while timely filing of returns is a mandatory condition for claiming deduction under Chapter VI-A, the assessee can approach the competent authority under Section 119(2)(b) to seek condonation of delay due to genuine hardship. The Assessing Officer is directed to give effect to the order of the competent authority.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance under section 14A and additions under sections 41(1) and 68. However, it allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the exclusion of SEZ manufacturing profits from MAT computation, following a jurisdictional precedent.

The Tribunal held that the DDT rate cannot exceed the rate prescribed under the respective DTAA. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal directed the refund of DDT paid in excess of the rate stipulated in the DTAA.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered by the assessee do not qualify as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) under Article 12(4) of the India-Singapore DTAA. This decision was based on the consistent view of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for prior assessment years.

The Tribunal held that the failure to issue a notice under Section 143(2) and the omission to pass a draft assessment order under Section 144C are jurisdictional defects. Consequently, the assessment orders passed were quashed as being without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal restored the issue of short grant of TDS credit and consequential interest under section 244A to the Assessing Officer for verification. It also directed the Assessing Officer to examine and allow set-off of brought forward business losses for certain assessment years.

The tribunal set aside the addition under Section 68 to the Assessing Officer for verification of the creditworthiness of the loan parties. The disallowance of interest was deleted, finding no basis for the AO's benchmark rate of 12% and noting that similar transactions were not disputed in earlier years.

The Tribunal held that the DDT rate cannot exceed the rate prescribed under the respective DTAA. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal directed the refund of DDT paid in excess of the rate stipulated in the DTAA.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no reason to interfere with the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c). The assessee's grounds of appeal were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default for not deducting TDS on LTC. This is because the assessee was bound by the interim directions of the Madras High Court, and deducting tax would have amounted to contempt of court.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default for not deducting TDS on LTC. This is because the assessee was bound by the interim directions of the Madras High Court, and deducting tax would have amounted to contempt of court.

The Tribunal held that the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default for failing to deduct tax at source. This was because the assessee was bound by the interim directions of the Madras High Court, and deducting tax would have amounted to contempt of court.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default for not deducting TDS on LTC. This is because the assessee was bound by the interim directions of the Madras High Court, and deducting tax would have amounted to contempt of court.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, stating that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be treated as an assessee in default for not deducting TDS on LTC. This is because the assessee was bound by the interim directions of the Madras High Court, and deducting tax would have amounted to contempt of court.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance under Section 14A, as no exempt income was earned. However, it reversed the CIT(A)'s deletion of disallowance under Section 43B, holding that interest paid to a scheduled cooperative bank is covered by the section, even if capitalized.

The Tribunal held that the DDT rate cannot exceed the rate prescribed under the respective DTAA. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal directed the refund of DDT paid in excess of the rate stipulated in the DTAA.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s ex parte decision violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance under section 14A and additions under sections 41(1) and 68. However, it allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the exclusion of SEZ manufacturing profits from MAT computation, following a jurisdictional precedent.

The Tribunal held that since the substantive relief sought (renewal and approval) was granted by subsequent orders, the appeals against the rejection orders were infructuous. The Tribunal also stated it could not adjudicate on the conditions imposed in the subsequent orders as they were not under appeal.