ITAT Mumbai Judgments — July 2026

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice require a fair and effective opportunity to be heard before rejecting an application with significant civil consequences. Since this was not afforded, the matter was restored.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A)'s approach was legally unsustainable. The statutory right of appeal against an assessment order cannot be curtailed because the assessee did not challenge the revisional order.

The Tribunal is hearing appeals from both the Revenue and the assessee concerning additions made under Section 68 related to share transactions. The assessee's cross-objections challenge the reopening of assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered did not meet the 'make available' condition under Article 12(4)(b) of the India-Singapore DTAA. Therefore, the fees received were not taxable as FTS in India.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered did not meet the 'make available' condition under Article 12(4)(b) of the India-Singapore DTAA. Therefore, the fees received were not taxable as FTS in India.

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 services rendered did not meet the 'make available' condition under Article 12(4)(b) of the India-Singapore DTAA. Therefore, the fees received were not taxable as FTS in India.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered did not meet the 'make available' condition under Article 12(4)(b) of the India-Singapore DTAA. Therefore, the fees received were not taxable as FTS in India.

The Tribunal decided to follow a previous order in the assessee's own case for subsequent assessment years. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) to be kept pending until the Supreme Court delivers its final decision on the eligibility issue.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered did not meet the 'make available' condition under Article 12(4)(b) of the India-Singapore DTAA. Therefore, the fees received were not taxable as FTS in India.

The Tribunal held that since the grievance assailed in the appeals has been resolved by subsequent events, the appeals have become infructuous. Therefore, the assessee's request for withdrawal was granted.

The Tribunal held that amounts received by the assessee on or before 24.05.2019, as per the agreement for sale, could not be disregarded as the source of investment. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition subject to verification of certain receipts and utilization of other amounts for loan repayment.

The Tribunal held that since the grievance assailed in the appeals has been resolved by subsequent events, the appeals have become infructuous. Therefore, the assessee's request for withdrawal was granted.

The Tribunal held that the mistake in opting for the correct clause of Section 12A(1)(ac) was a technical and procedural fault. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the AO's order. It found that the transaction was a transfer of tenancy rights, not ownership, and thus Section 50C was not applicable. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

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 the requirement to file Form 67 is procedural and directory, not mandatory. A substantive right to claim FTC under Section 90 and DTAA cannot be denied solely due to delayed filing of Form 67.

The Tribunal held that the requirement to file Form 67 is procedural and directory, not mandatory. A procedural lapse should not override the substantive right to claim FTC under section 90 and DTAAs, especially when the claim is otherwise valid.

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 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 NFAC lacked jurisdiction to decide the appeal based on a CBDT notification that assigned specific jurisdictions to Commissioners of Income-tax (Appeals) for transfer pricing cases. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the NFAC was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of estimated commission income. The basis for the addition was not supported by any material evidence and was disconnected from the original assessment.

The Tribunal held that the concept of pre-operative expenses is alien to charitable organizations under Section 11 and 12 of the Act. It directed the AO to allow eligible expenditures actually incurred during the year as application of income, restoring the issue for verification.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not adequately examined the factual aspects and documentary evidence regarding the sale of flats and the assessee's accounting method. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO's method of estimating annual letting value based on stamp duty valuation of tenancy rights was unsustainable. It affirmed that where rent control legislation applies, the annual value cannot exceed the standard rent, and the AO failed to prove the property was outside such control.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10B was a procedural lapse, not a substantive one, and that the substantive requirement of obtaining the audit report was met. Following various High Court judgments, the Tribunal condoned the delay.

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 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 restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The CIT(A) was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

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 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 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 Section 36(2)(iv) is a transitional provision and not applicable to the current assessment year. It further held that once the statutory conditions under Section 36(1)(vii) and 36(2) are fulfilled, actual irrecoverability need not be proven.

The tribunal found significant procedural irregularities in the CIT(A)'s order, including the incorrect assessment year and dismissal for non-prosecution without proper adjudication. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that only one opportunity was provided to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration after providing adequate opportunity.

The Tribunal held that a disallowance of expenditure does not automatically amount to misreporting of income. The revenue failed to establish the specific ingredients of misreporting under Section 270A(9) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' and the need for substantial justice. The Tribunal further held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), as cooperative banks are a species of cooperative societies.

The Tribunal held that a co-operative bank is a species of the genus 'co-operative society'. Therefore, interest earned by a co-operative society from a co-operative bank is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the delay did not constitute a "sufficient cause" as per the Act, citing Supreme Court judgments on the importance of diligence and the law of limitation. The Tribunal found gross negligence and inaction on the part of the assessee.

The Tribunal found that only one opportunity was provided to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration after providing adequate opportunity.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal regarding additions from 'token notes' and WhatsApp chats, reducing the estimated profit rate from 3% to 1%. Additions related to alleged salary payments and seized foreign currency/gold coin were deleted.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission regarding the violation of natural justice. The appeal was restored to the file of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing adequate opportunity.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) provided only one opportunity to the assessee to respond. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal regarding additions from 'token notes' and WhatsApp chats, reducing the estimated profit rate from 3% to 1%. Additions related to alleged salary payments and seized foreign currency/gold coin were deleted.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal regarding additions from 'token notes' and WhatsApp chats, reducing the estimated profit rate from 3% to 1%. Additions related to alleged salary payments and seized foreign currency/gold coin were deleted.

The Tribunal found that only one opportunity was given to the assessee and restored the appeal to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The CIT(E) is directed to decide the application after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the AO's conclusion was based on suspicion and unverified signature comparison, not cogent evidence. The documentary evidence supported the Assessee's claim of ownership, and the sale consideration should be taxed as capital gains.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's bona fide belief, noting the short interval between acquiring and selling shares and the assessee's likely lack of expertise in tax provisions. The Tribunal deleted the penalty levied under Section 270A.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the approval was unsustainable as the assessee had disclosed the date of its creation and the original approval was granted considering this fact. No violation of the earlier approval was pointed out.