ITAT Mumbai Judgments — July 2026

The Tribunal, following its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case, set aside the AO's order and directed the deletion of additions related to bogus LTCG. Regarding penalty proceedings, the Tribunal quashed the penalty as the notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was found to be vague and invalid.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to present its case before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, considering the documents now placed before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to present its case before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, considering the documents now placed before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on a mistaken identity due to an incorrect PAN being cited. This fundamental error rendered the notice under Section 148 and the subsequent assessment order invalid.

The Tribunal held that the advance to the subsidiary was for commercial expediency, as it was a startup entity and the funds were used for acquiring land for business expansion. The delay in completing formalities did not negate the commercial expediency.

The Tribunal granted the assessee one final opportunity to submit the required documents, including the signed and stamped agreement, invoices, and evidence of service rendering. This was subject to the assessee depositing a cost of Rs. 11,000/- within 15 days.

The Tribunal held that the absence of an irrevocability clause alone is not a sufficient ground to deny registration, especially when the trust deed has since been amended to include it. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in disregarding the customary practices of household savings by housewives and gifts to minors, and also overlooked the principle of telescoping. The Tribunal found that the cash found was explained by prior year's recognized cash inflow.

The Tribunal, following its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case, set aside the AO's order and directed the deletion of additions related to bogus LTCG. Regarding penalty proceedings, the Tribunal quashed the penalty as the notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was found to be vague and invalid.

The Tribunal, following its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case, set aside the AO's order and directed the deletion of additions related to bogus LTCG. Regarding penalty proceedings, the Tribunal quashed the penalty as the notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was found to be vague and invalid.

The Tribunal, following its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case, set aside the AO's order and directed the deletion of additions related to bogus LTCG. Regarding penalty proceedings, the Tribunal quashed the penalty as the notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was found to be vague and invalid.

The Tribunal, following its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case, set aside the AO's order and directed the deletion of additions related to bogus LTCG. Regarding penalty proceedings, the Tribunal quashed the penalty as the notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was found to be vague and invalid.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 41 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), emphasizing that substantial justice should prevail over technical lapses. The Tribunal also noted that the entire proceedings were undertaken in the name of the deceased person, which is an illegality.

The ITAT found the CIT(A)'s reasoning unsustainable, stating the CIT(A) should have conducted necessary inquiries instead of deleting the addition based on the AO's lack of inquiry. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, following its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case, set aside the AO's order and directed the deletion of additions related to bogus LTCG. Regarding penalty proceedings, the Tribunal quashed the penalty as the notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was found to be vague and invalid.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause. It held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid as it was based on a reappraisal of existing records without any fresh material, constituting an impermissible review.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause. It held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid as it was based on a reappraisal of existing records without any fresh material, constituting an impermissible review.

The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable as the AO relied on third-party statements without providing them to the assessee or allowing cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice. The assessee had provided substantial documentary evidence for the transactions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause. It held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was invalid as it was based on a reappraisal of existing records without any fresh material, constituting an impermissible review.

The Tribunal, following its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case, set aside the AO's order and directed the deletion of additions related to bogus LTCG. Regarding penalty proceedings, the Tribunal quashed the penalty as the notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was found to be vague and invalid.

The Tribunal, following its own previous decisions in the assessee's own case, set aside the AO's order and directed the deletion of additions related to bogus LTCG. Regarding penalty proceedings, the Tribunal quashed the penalty as the notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) was found to be vague and invalid.

The Tribunal held that the AO should have referred the transfer pricing issue to the TPO as per CBDT instructions. The Tribunal also directed the AO to re-examine the ALP determination based on available documentary evidence.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to present its case before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, considering the documents now placed before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide cogent material to demonstrate that the documents submitted by the assessee were false. Crucially, the 'cash trail chart' was not confronted to the assessee, violating natural justice. Furthermore, the alleged entities providing accommodation entries were not shareholders in the assessee company.

The Tribunal decided that the reopening of assessment was bad in law as the conditions of Section 147 were not fulfilled. It also held that the addition of Rs. 28,50,46,920/- as unexplained investment was not justified, and the addition of interest income was also incorrect.

The Tribunal held that assessees should be given an effective and reasonable opportunity to furnish documents and explanations before rejection of their applications. Since this was not adequately provided, the matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the rejection based solely on procedural/technical errors in selecting the correct provision was not justified, especially when the assessee's intention to seek re-registration was clear. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the rejection based solely on procedural/technical errors in selecting the correct provision was not justified, especially when the assessee's intention to seek re-registration was clear. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that as per the first proviso to Section 56(2)(x), the stamp duty value on the date of the agreement (MOU) should be considered when the agreement date and registration date differ. The addition and consequent penalty were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided comprehensive details and documentary evidence in response to the CIT(E)'s notice. The rejection was based on generalized observations without objective evaluation of the material on record.

The Tribunal held that assessees should be given an effective and reasonable opportunity to furnish documents and explanations before rejection of their applications. Since this was not adequately provided, the matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that assessees should be given an effective and reasonable opportunity to furnish documents and explanations before rejection of their applications. Since this was not adequately provided, the matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that assessees should be given an effective and reasonable opportunity to furnish documents and explanations before rejection of their applications. Since this was not adequately provided, the matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessees were not afforded an effective and reasonable opportunity to present their case before the rejection of their applications. Therefore, the matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that assessees should be given an effective and reasonable opportunity to furnish documents and explanations before rejection of their applications. Since this was not adequately provided, the matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging reasonable cause. It held that the Assessing Officer should have computed the income under commercial principles after allowing expenses, rather than taxing the entire gross receipts.

The Tribunal held that assessees should be given an effective and reasonable opportunity to furnish documents and explanations before rejection of their applications. Since this was not adequately provided, the matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that assessees should be given an effective and reasonable opportunity to furnish documents and explanations before rejection of their applications. Since this was not adequately provided, the matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that assessees should be given an effective and reasonable opportunity to furnish documents and explanations before rejection of their applications. Since this was not adequately provided, the matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 2226 days, following the Bombay High Court's decision in Zulfikar Abdul Rashid Khan. The appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging reasonable cause. It held that the Assessing Officer should have computed the income under commercial principles after allowing expenses, rather than taxing the entire gross receipts.

The Tribunal held that the registration of an agreement in the current year did not constitute a fresh acquisition of property when the property was already purchased and possessed nearly two decades earlier. Consequently, the addition under section 56(2)(x) and the consequential penalty under section 270A were rightly deleted.

The Tribunal held that assessees should be given an effective and reasonable opportunity to furnish documents and explanations before rejection of their applications. Since this was not adequately provided, the matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting the application without giving adequate opportunity. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without deciding on merits. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that assessees should be given an effective and reasonable opportunity to furnish documents and explanations before rejection of their applications. Since this was not adequately provided, the matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should provide an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay in filing the application for registration. The CIT(E) was directed to consider the applications afresh after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of cogent material establishing the assessee's involvement in alleged Client Code Modification (CCM) activities, additions cannot be sustained solely on information from the Investigation Wing. The revenue failed to provide independent or corroborative evidence of the assessee's participation in fraudulent CCM activity.

The Tribunal held that dispensing units are an integral and indispensable part of the business of manufacturing petroleum products, as they are necessary for selling the final products. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order deleting the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that assessees should be given an effective and reasonable opportunity to furnish documents and explanations before rejection of their applications. Since this was not adequately provided, the matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.