ITAT Mumbai Judgments — July 2026

The Tribunal held that the galas were acquired in 2007, establishing rights in the property, and thus the gain should be treated as long-term capital gain. It also found that the variation between the sale consideration and the DVO's valuation was within the permissible tolerance under Section 50C.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on grounds of non-compliance without adjudicating on merits, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on grounds of non-compliance without adjudicating on merits, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on grounds of non-compliance without adjudicating on merits, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the mere execution and registration of a redevelopment agreement does not amount to the 'receipt' of immovable property under Section 56(2)(x) when the property is still under construction and possession has not been handed over. It also noted that the transaction was supported by consideration in lieu of surrendered tenancy rights.

The Tribunal admitted subsequent orders from SEBI and SAT as additional evidence. These orders indicated the assessee acted as a conduit for entry providers. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, taking into account the AY 2015-16 assessment order.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party statements and uncorroborated entries in an excel sheet, without independent corroborative evidence or an opportunity for cross-examination, cannot be sustained. The Tribunal followed numerous judicial precedents on identical facts.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were vitiated due to an invalid statutory notice under Section 274. The notice failed to specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which penalty was proposed, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party statements and uncorroborated entries in an excel sheet, without independent corroborative evidence or an opportunity for cross-examination, cannot be sustained. The Tribunal followed numerous judicial precedents on identical facts.

The Tribunal held that the failure to file the mandatory declaration form under PMGKY renders the disclosure invalid, and the amount cannot be treated as explained income or allow credit for taxes paid. The addition under Section 69A was sustained.

The Tribunal held that the additions could not be sustained solely on the basis of third-party material (digital records and disclosures) without independent corroborative evidence linking the assessee to the alleged cash transactions. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to establish the jurisdictional facts required for invoking the fourth proviso to section 153A. The assessment orders did not demonstrate that the alleged escaped income was represented in an identifiable asset, nor did they show independent jurisdictional satisfaction.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to establish the jurisdictional facts required for invoking the fourth proviso to section 153A. The assessment orders did not demonstrate that the alleged escaped income was represented in an identifiable asset, nor did they show independent jurisdictional satisfaction.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following a coordinate bench's ruling in the assessee's own case for prior assessment years. The Tribunal found that the issues regarding WIP, Section 14A disallowance, and notional income were squarely covered by the earlier decision.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the loss on shares and securities was a realized business loss from completed transactions, not a notional loss on an open contract. The initial submission by the assessee was considered an inadvertent error rectified with documentary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot make an addition on an issue different from the one that formed the basis of the 'reason to believe' for reopening the assessment under Section 147, unless a fresh notice is issued. The reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the exemption under sections 11 and 12 could not be denied for the preceding year if the return was filed within the statutory period on the date of registration. It also held that the delayed filing of Form 10B, which was available before assessment completion, was a procedural lapse and did not warrant denial of exemption.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party statements and uncorroborated entries in an excel sheet, without independent corroborative evidence or an opportunity for cross-examination, cannot be sustained. The Tribunal followed numerous judicial precedents on identical facts.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party statements and uncorroborated entries in an excel sheet, without independent corroborative evidence or an opportunity for cross-examination, cannot be sustained. The Tribunal followed numerous judicial precedents on identical facts.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party statements and uncorroborated entries in an excel sheet, without independent corroborative evidence or an opportunity for cross-examination, cannot be sustained. The Tribunal followed numerous judicial precedents on identical facts.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party statements and uncorroborated entries in an excel sheet, without independent corroborative evidence or an opportunity for cross-examination, cannot be sustained. The Tribunal followed numerous judicial precedents on identical facts.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party statements and uncorroborated entries in an excel sheet, without independent corroborative evidence or an opportunity for cross-examination, cannot be sustained. The Tribunal followed numerous judicial precedents on identical facts.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party statements and uncorroborated entries in an excel sheet, without independent corroborative evidence or an opportunity for cross-examination, cannot be sustained. The Tribunal followed numerous judicial precedents on identical facts.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party statements and uncorroborated entries in an excel sheet, without independent corroborative evidence or an opportunity for cross-examination, cannot be sustained. The Tribunal followed numerous judicial precedents on identical facts.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party statements and uncorroborated entries in an excel sheet, without independent corroborative evidence or an opportunity for cross-examination, cannot be sustained. The Tribunal followed numerous judicial precedents on identical facts.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following a coordinate bench's ruling in the assessee's own case for prior assessment years. The Tribunal found that the issues regarding WIP, Section 14A disallowance, and notional income were squarely covered by the earlier decision.

The Tribunal held that the issue was recurring and had been decided in favour of the assessee in previous and subsequent assessment years by the Tribunal itself. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, confirming that the assessee had reasonably demonstrated its case with invoices, confirmations, TDS records, and agreements.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following a coordinate bench's ruling in the assessee's own case for prior assessment years. The Tribunal found that the issues regarding WIP, Section 14A disallowance, and notional income were squarely covered by the earlier decision.

The Tribunal held that the purchase and sale of shares were supported by documentary evidence and the revenue failed to provide specific evidence connecting the assessee to any manipulation or bogus transactions. Therefore, the additions were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the failure to file the mandatory declaration form under PMGKY renders the disclosure invalid, and the amount cannot be treated as explained income or allow credit for taxes paid. The addition under Section 69A was sustained.

The Tribunal held that the marketing and advertisement expenditure was revenue in nature, incurred for promoting an existing business. It also held that payments for subscription-based software and cloud services to non-residents did not constitute royalty, thus not requiring TDS deduction.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party statements and uncorroborated entries in an excel sheet, without independent corroborative evidence or an opportunity for cross-examination, cannot be sustained. The Tribunal followed numerous judicial precedents on identical facts.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following a coordinate bench's ruling in the assessee's own case for prior assessment years. The Tribunal found that the issues regarding WIP, Section 14A disallowance, and notional income were squarely covered by the earlier decision.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party statements and uncorroborated entries in an excel sheet, without independent corroborative evidence or an opportunity for cross-examination, cannot be sustained. The Tribunal followed numerous judicial precedents on identical facts.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party statements and uncorroborated entries in an excel sheet, without independent corroborative evidence or an opportunity for cross-examination, cannot be sustained. The Tribunal followed numerous judicial precedents on identical facts.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party statements and uncorroborated entries in an excel sheet, without independent corroborative evidence or an opportunity for cross-examination, cannot be sustained. The Tribunal followed numerous judicial precedents on identical facts.

The Tribunal held that since the foundational revisional order under Section 263 was annulled, the consequential assessment order could not survive. Furthermore, a coordinate bench had already decided that the interest income was assessable as business income.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee provided some documents, crucial details regarding other co-owners and their contributions were missing. Therefore, the case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the maximum marginal rate under section 2(29C) does not mandate the highest surcharge rate. The surcharge must be determined based on the computation mechanism and slab rates in the Finance Act, following a Special Bench decision.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case, considering they could not effectively represent it earlier.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed beyond the prescribed time limitations under Section 144C of the Act, making it bad in law and void ab initio. Consequently, the returned income was deemed to be accepted as the finally assessed income.

The Tribunal held that the maximum marginal rate under section 2(29C) does not mandate the highest surcharge rate. The surcharge must be determined based on the computation mechanism and slab rates in the Finance Act, following a Special Bench decision.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party statements and uncorroborated entries in an excel sheet, without independent corroborative evidence or an opportunity for cross-examination, cannot be sustained. The Tribunal followed numerous judicial precedents on identical facts.

The Tribunal held that the approval for reassessment proceedings under section 148A(d) and notice under section 148 was granted by an incompetent authority (PCIT instead of PCCIT) as the actions were taken after three years from the end of the assessment year. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party statements and uncorroborated entries in an excel sheet, without independent corroborative evidence or an opportunity for cross-examination, cannot be sustained. The Tribunal followed numerous judicial precedents on identical facts.

The Tribunal held that the concept of pre-operative expenses is alien to charitable organizations under Section 11 and 12 of the Act. However, it directed the AO to allow eligible expenditures incurred during the year as application of income and to recompute the income accordingly.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party statements and uncorroborated entries in an excel sheet, without independent corroborative evidence or an opportunity for cross-examination, cannot be sustained. The Tribunal followed numerous judicial precedents on identical facts.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party statements and uncorroborated entries in an excel sheet, without independent corroborative evidence or an opportunity for cross-examination, cannot be sustained. The Tribunal followed numerous judicial precedents on identical facts.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party statements and uncorroborated entries in an excel sheet, without independent corroborative evidence or an opportunity for cross-examination, cannot be sustained. The Tribunal followed numerous judicial precedents on identical facts.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee to file an application for condonation of delay and to decide the appeal afresh on merits after considering the explanation for the delay and providing an opportunity to the assessee.