ITAT Mumbai Judgments — June 2026

The Tribunal held that the ad-hoc disallowance of 'other expenses' was not justified as the assessee's books were audited and accepted, and similar expenses were allowed in prior years. However, the issue of the government grant was not examined by the AO, necessitating a remand.

The Tribunal found that the rejection was based on the alleged non-furnishing of documents, while the assessee claimed to have submitted them. Therefore, the matter was restored for fresh verification and examination by the CIT (Exemption).

The Tribunal found that the rejection was based on the alleged non-furnishing of documents, while the assessee claimed to have submitted them. Therefore, the matter was restored for fresh verification and examination by the CIT (Exemption).

The Tribunal held that the rejection was primarily due to non-compliance and not on merits. Considering the nature of the trust and the explanation provided, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case.

The Tribunal held that given the substantial documentary material already submitted and the rejection being based on a single unattended notice, it was in the interest of justice to provide another opportunity. The CIT (Exemption) was directed to re-examine the applications on merits after affording a proper hearing.

The Tribunal held that the rejection was primarily due to non-compliance and not on merits. Considering the nature of the trust and the explanation provided, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case.

The Tribunal held that the notional rent should be computed based on the Municipal Rateable Value, not the 8% estimated by the AO. Regarding advances received, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to verify the details and exclude the stock if advances were received, following precedent.

The Tribunal held that the DSIR's approval of the R&D facility, not the specific expenditure amount, was the primary criterion for Section 35(2AB). However, expenditure disallowed under Section 35(2AB) could still be eligible for deduction under Sections 35(1)(i) and 35(1)(iv) if independently satisfied.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals before it, and also condoned the delay before the CIT(A). Both appeals were set aside and restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for the purchases, and the AO had not conducted independent inquiries to disprove them. The Tribunal set aside the addition sustained by the CIT(A), stating that purchases cannot be treated as bogus solely on general information from the Investigation Wing when primary evidence remains unrebutted and books of account are not rejected.

The Tribunal held that observations made by the CIT(Exemption) making the registration and approval conditional on a future Supreme Court challenge were unsustainable. A judgment of the jurisdictional High Court is binding, and a contemplated appeal does not dilute its force. The caveats were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's explanation reasonable and satisfactory. It also noted that the Commissioner had not adjudicated the issues on merits due to the assessee's absence.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148, issued on July 28, 2022, for Assessment Year 2015-16, was barred by limitation. This was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal, which stated that the benefit of TOLA was not applicable for extending the six-year limitation period for AY 2015-16.

The Tribunal held that given the substantial documentary material already submitted and the rejection being based on a single unattended notice, it was in the interest of justice to provide another opportunity. The CIT (Exemption) was directed to re-examine the applications on merits after affording a proper hearing.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal followed the view of the jurisdictional High Court of Bombay and other High Courts that supported this position.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) might have erred in concluding that the earlier registration certificate was not produced. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for reconsideration and verification of the submitted documents.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s rejection was based on factually incorrect assumptions and contrary to the material on record. The assessee had provided evidence of prior registration and charitable activities.

The Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, considering amendments to the law and pending High Court proceedings. The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were also set aside for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s rejection was based on factually incorrect assumptions and contrary to the material on record. The assessee had provided evidence of prior registration and charitable activities.

The Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, considering amendments to the law and pending High Court proceedings. The penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) were also set aside for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the AO's subsequent findings accepting the assessee's disclosures should prevail over the initial 143(1) adjustments. The disallowance of income application and the computation of gross total income were found to be erroneous due to inconsistencies with the AO's own findings.

The Tribunal found that the CIT's order was based on a premise of non-compliance without proper examination of the documents furnished by the assessee. The matter was restored to the CIT for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that no CSR expenditure was claimed. Since no claim was made, the question of disallowance did not arise, and the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of LTCG as unexplained cash credit. The case was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee to cross-examine the relevant parties.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals before it, and also condoned the delay before the CIT(A). Both appeals were set aside and restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the applications were disposed of ex parte due to non-compliance with a single notice, without examining the merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any exempt income earned by the assessee, the disallowance under Section 14A is not permissible. Therefore, the addition made and sustained by the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 09/2024. The assessee's cross-objection was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the right of appeal is a valuable statutory right and provisions for condonation of delay are meant to advance substantial justice. The Tribunal found that the assessee's appeal was dismissed at the threshold without adjudicating the substantive issues.

The Tribunal held that the DSIR's approval of the R&D facility, not the specific expenditure amount, was the primary criterion for Section 35(2AB). However, expenditure disallowed under Section 35(2AB) could still be eligible for deduction under Sections 35(1)(i) and 35(1)(iv) if independently satisfied.

The Tribunal found that the rejection was primarily based on alleged non-compliance without proper examination of the documents furnished by the assessee. The matter was restored to the CIT (Exemptions) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that observations made by the CIT(Exemption) making the registration and approval conditional on a future Supreme Court challenge were unsustainable. A judgment of the jurisdictional High Court is binding, and a contemplated appeal does not dilute its force. The caveats were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to continue with its suo motu disallowance of Rs. 9,11,435/- under Section 14A and directed the AO to restrict the disallowance to this amount. The addition of disallowance made under Section 14A to book profits under Section 115JB was also directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notices were issued without jurisdiction and were barred by limitation, as the alleged escaped income did not meet the threshold for the extended period under Section 149(1)(b). Consequently, the penalty orders, being consequential to the invalid assessment, were also quashed.

The Tribunal held that the DSIR's approval of the R&D facility, not the specific expenditure amount, was the primary criterion for Section 35(2AB). However, expenditure disallowed under Section 35(2AB) could still be eligible for deduction under Sections 35(1)(i) and 35(1)(iv) if independently satisfied.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notices were issued without jurisdiction and were barred by limitation, as the alleged escaped income did not meet the threshold for the extended period under Section 149(1)(b). Consequently, the penalty orders, being consequential to the invalid assessment, were also quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, as the substantive grounds were not considered.

The Tribunal held that observations made by the CIT(Exemption) making the registration and approval conditional on a future Supreme Court challenge were unsustainable. A judgment of the jurisdictional High Court is binding, and a contemplated appeal does not dilute its force. The caveats were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the applications were disposed of ex parte due to non-compliance with a single notice, without examining the merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the error in the Tax Audit Report was a clerical mistake, as the stated date preceded the relevant period. Since the PF contribution was paid well within the due date, the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing documentary evidence of share purchase, dematerialization, sale through a registered broker on a stock exchange, and payment of STT. Without corroborative evidence directly linking the assessee to any irregularity, the claim under Section 10(38) could not be discarded. The Tribunal also relied on a previous decision involving the same scrip.

The Tribunal held that the original application was filed within the validity period of provisional registration and the subsequent filing was a corrective measure for a procedural defect. The CIT(E) also failed to consider the power to condone delay.

The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 was issued beyond the limitation period prescribed by section 149, as the six-year period expired on 31.03.2022. The provisions of TOLA did not extend this period for AY 2015-16.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeal, citing the need for a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' and the principle of substantial justice over technical lapses. The matter was then remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the DSIR's approval of the R&D facility, not the specific expenditure amount, was the primary criterion for Section 35(2AB). However, expenditure disallowed under Section 35(2AB) could still be eligible for deduction under Sections 35(1)(i) and 35(1)(iv) if independently satisfied.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) must be computed independently of Section 36(1)(viii), following a High Court ruling. Consequently, the disallowance made by the lower authorities under Section 36(1)(viia) was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Exemption) and restored the matter to the CIT(Exemption)'s file for fresh adjudication. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to decide the application on merits after affording the assessee a due and effective opportunity of hearing.