ITAT Mumbai Judgments — July 2026

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an effective opportunity to present the required documents, as the merits of the application were not examined and the non-compliance was explained. Consequently, both rejections were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to furnish the required documents and present its case. The rejection was based on procedural grounds without a merit-based examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was completed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The assessee was denied access to complete material and an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements formed the basis of the addition.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an effective opportunity to present the required documents, as the merits of the application were not examined and the non-compliance was explained. Consequently, both rejections were set aside.

The Tribunal noted that while submissions were part of the record, they were not filed during appellate proceedings, leading to non-adjudication on merits. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to furnish the required documents and present its case. The rejection was based on procedural grounds without a merit-based examination.

The Tribunal held that both the AO and CIT(A) were not justified in finalizing the assessment without referring the property's valuation to the DVO, especially when the assessee objected and provided a registered valuer's report. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment after obtaining the DVO's valuation.

The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A) due to the ongoing CIRP. The ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the rejection orders lacked specificity regarding the deficiencies and did not demonstrate that the assessee was afforded an effective opportunity to rectify them. Therefore, the matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, in the interest of justice, set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A). The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the rejection was based on procedural non-compliance without examining the merits and that the assessee should be given an effective opportunity to present its case. The rejection of the 80G application was consequential to the 12AB rejection.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. This was subject to the assessee paying costs of Rs. 2,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee disputed the stamp duty valuation and provided comparable sales, the AO should have referred the matter to the DVO. The case was restored to the AO to determine the fair market value with a DVO report.

The Tribunal deleted the additions, noting that the assessee was not given an opportunity for cross-examination and that similar additions in other cases based on the same evidence were deleted by coordinate benches. The Tribunal emphasized the doctrine of binding precedents and judicial consistency.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing sufficient cause and the need for substantial justice over technicalities. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, subject to the assessee paying a nominal cost.

The Tribunal held that the bonus payments were made to regular employees of the assessee, and the mode of payment through a sister concern, which was later reimbursed, should not be the sole basis for disallowance. The Tribunal also found that the cash payments did not exceed the threshold for Section 40A(3) invocation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's inability to furnish certain documents arose from a genuine misunderstanding, and the CIT(A) should have admitted the additional evidence. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after admitting the evidence.

The Tribunal found sufficient cause for the assessee's non-appearance before the CIT(A) due to the ongoing CIRP. The ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's reliance on his Chartered Accountant and lack of effective representation. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal found that the rejection orders lacked specificity regarding the deficiencies and did not demonstrate that the assessee was afforded an effective opportunity to rectify them. Therefore, the matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's grounds of appeal. It found no new facts to controvert the CIT(A)'s findings and saw no reason to interfere with the restricted disallowance.

The Tribunal noted that the relief claimed by the assessee had already been granted by the CIT(A) in a subsequent order. Therefore, the present appeal had become infructuous.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer, finding that factual verification was necessary and that the violation of natural justice warranted such action. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the rejection was based on procedural non-compliance without examining the merits and that the assessee should be given an effective opportunity to present its case. The rejection of the 80G application was consequential to the 12AB rejection.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the need for substantial justice. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, dismissing the Revenue's grounds of appeal. It found no new facts to controvert the CIT(A)'s findings and saw no reason to interfere with the restricted disallowance.

The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's request and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Ld. DR did not object to this course of action.

The CIT(A) restricted the addition to 2% of the purchases, considering that the assessee had discharged its primary onus and the AO relied on third-party information without providing cross-examination. The Tribunal upheld this decision.

The Tribunal held that obtaining prior approval from the specified authority under Section 151 is a jurisdictional pre-condition for assuming jurisdiction under Section 148. Non-compliance renders the notice and subsequent reassessment proceedings invalid.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and allowed the assessee's application for admission of additional evidence. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering the additional evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the assessee's explanation to be bona fide. It held that the CIT(E) did not properly appreciate the evidence regarding the commencement of activities or the implications of the Memorandum of Association.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal observed that while the assessee's explanation for gifts appeared genuine, it lacked documentary evidence. Similarly, for depreciation, the relevant documents were not produced. Therefore, both issues were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that an order passed by the Chief Commissioner under Section 119 of the Act, as delegated by the CBDT, is not an appealable order before the ITAT. The appropriate remedy lies with a court of law.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the transaction, including the receipt and repayment of the advance through banking channels. The adverse investigation reports and non-compliance by the third party were not sufficient to disallow the transaction.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to adopt the fair market value of the shares on the exercise date as the cost of acquisition under Section 49(2AA) for computing capital gains. The AO's contrary view was set aside.

The Tribunal held that rejection of books of accounts solely for non-maintenance of qualitative stock details, without any other defect, is unsustainable. The estimation of profit at an arbitrary rate of 3% was also found to lack rational basis.

The Tribunal found that the issues required comprehensive factual verification and the material on record was insufficient to delete the additions. Therefore, the case was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisionary action amounted to a change of opinion, as the AO had conducted a thorough inquiry and taken a plausible view. The pendency of an SLP before the Supreme Court did not invalidate the AO's assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order is vitiated in law for non-compliance with the mandatory procedure of disposing of objections by a speaking order before completing reassessment. The reassessment proceedings are quashed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its prima facie onus by furnishing various documents. However, considering the uncertainty regarding whether any part of the alleged purchases was already offered to tax, the Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the addition to 5% of the alleged bogus purchases.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application solely on the ground of absence of an irrevocability clause was incorrect, following the Bombay High Court's decision. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to grant registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G.

The Tribunal noted that the rejection of the 12AB application was set aside by a co-ordinate bench. Therefore, the sole basis for rejecting the 80G application no longer existed. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application solely on the ground of absence of an irrevocability clause was incorrect, following the Bombay High Court's decision. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to grant registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had failed to produce crucial documents before the lower authorities. However, considering these documents were essential for a just adjudication, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the assessee's explanation to be bona fide. It held that the CIT(E) did not properly appreciate the evidence regarding the commencement of activities or the implications of the Memorandum of Association.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT was justified in invoking Section 263 as the AO's application of Section 68 to alleged bogus purchases (which are expenditures) was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. The matter was remanded for examination under the correct provisions.

The Tribunal observed that crucial documents supporting the assessee's claim were not provided to the lower authorities. For substantial justice, the case was remanded to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to present these documents and substantiate their claim.