ITAT Mumbai Judgments — July 2026

The Tribunal held that gross receipts cannot be equated with income, and only the profit element of alleged unaccounted receipts is taxable. It also ruled that related unaccounted cash expenditure linked to these receipts would lead to double taxation if added separately. Sub-contracting expenses were deemed genuine after reviewing documentary evidence.

The Tribunal held that gross receipts cannot be equated with income, and only the profit element of alleged unaccounted receipts is taxable. It also ruled that related unaccounted cash expenditure linked to these receipts would lead to double taxation if added separately. Sub-contracting expenses were deemed genuine after reviewing documentary evidence.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided substantial evidence, including purchase and sales bills, delivery challans, stock registers, and bank statements, to support the genuineness of the purchases. The AO had not conducted independent inquiries and had relied solely on the Sales Tax Department's report.

The Tribunal held that the payment for closure of the Paging Division was not an expenditure incurred for carrying on the assessee's business and thus not allowable under Section 37(1). However, it found merit in the assessee's submission regarding foreign exchange fluctuation loss, stating that actual figures from books of account should be used instead of estimation.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that their written submissions were not considered. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the transfer of loans via journal entries constituted a reasonable cause for non-compliance with Section 269SS, considering it was part of financial restructuring and to address a shortage of funds. Therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that mere payment by cheque does not prove genuine purchases without confirmation of actual delivery. Since the assessee failed to provide evidence of physical delivery of goods, the purchases were considered accommodation entries and treated as business income.

The Tribunal held that a co-operative bank is a species of co-operative society and therefore, interest income earned by a co-operative society from a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The deduction under Section 80P(2)(c)(ii) was also allowed as it was within the permissible limit.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition under Section 68 as the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions were established. Similarly, the disallowance under Section 14A was deleted as the assessee demonstrated no expenditure was incurred for exempt income.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as the assessee failed to provide any substantiation for its claims or explain its non-compliance. However, liberty was granted to the assessee to seek recall of the order by showing sufficient cause.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided substantial evidence, including purchase and sales bills, delivery challans, stock registers, and bank statements, to support the genuineness of the purchases. The AO had not conducted independent inquiries and had relied solely on the Sales Tax Department's report.

The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 68 for unsecured loans was unsustainable as the Assessing Officer failed to properly identify and examine the loans received during the year. Regarding Section 69A, the Tribunal found that the cash deposits were adequately explained by cash withdrawals and contra entries from other banks.

The Tribunal held that the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) adopted by the assessee was the Most Appropriate Method (MAM) for benchmarking the international transaction, not the Resale Price Method (RPM) adopted by the TPO. The Tribunal also remanded certain issues regarding comparable companies and double taxation for further verification.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide evidence for the proposed transactions and the return of a cheque. However, the AO also did not conduct independent inquiries.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated based on tangible material from the survey. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal against the reopening and the Department's appeal against the deletion of the addition, implying the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions regarding the technical difficulties. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated based on tangible material from the survey. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal against the reopening and the Department's appeal against the deletion of the addition, implying the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to dispose of the assessee's objections to the reopening by passing a speaking order before proceeding with the reassessment. This procedural lapse was considered a jurisdictional error that invalidated the reassessment proceedings.

The Tribunal noted that the relief sought in the appeal had already been granted due to the subsequent approval. Therefore, nothing remained for adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence and that the AO had failed to provide the alleged incriminating material to the assessee for rebuttal, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal allowed the application for additional evidence, admitting the ledger confirmation. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication after considering the additional evidence, subject to a cost on the assessee.

The Tribunal held that diamond-studded jewellery should be considered as jewellery under CBDT Instruction No. 1916. It also found that the pure gold, given the assessee's long married life, inheritance, and family income, was adequately explained and within the family's benchmark holding.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and decided to adjudicate the matter on merits. It also noted that the CIT(A) had erred in not considering the merits of the case due to the delay and the clerical mistake.

The Tribunal held that failure to file a return of income when taxable income exists, even if disclosed later after reassessment proceedings are initiated, constitutes under-reporting of income under Section 270A(2)(b). The availability of information with the department or TDS does not absolve the assessee of this obligation.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) did not properly consider the evidence furnished by the assessee and failed to conduct a creditor-wise examination. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that additions for loans received in earlier assessment years constituted double taxation. The Tribunal also noted that the impugned orders were passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing Supreme Court judgments that prioritize substantial justice over technicalities. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal held that the notice of reopening was issued by an officer without jurisdiction, as it should have been issued by the National Faceless Assessment Centre. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceeding and the assessment order were deemed void.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated based on tangible material from the survey. The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal against the reopening and the Department's appeal against the deletion of the addition, implying the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.

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 found merit in the assessee's submission that additions for loans received in earlier assessment years constituted double taxation. The Tribunal also noted that the impugned orders were passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance.

The Tribunal held that since the CIT(E) had subsequently granted the registration and approval, the assessee's appeals against the initial rejection had become infructuous.

The Tribunal held that since the CIT(E) had subsequently granted the registration and approval, the assessee's appeals had become infructuous. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to use the CUP method with the assessee as the tested party, but directed adjustments to account for functional differences between services provided to AEs and independent clients. The Tribunal found the assessee's claim for a 40% adjustment unsubstantiated.

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition. It was noted that the creditor was a corporate entity with a valid PAN, and the transaction was genuine as the amount was repaid within the same assessment year, satisfying the conditions for Section 68.

The Tribunal found that the explanation for the delay, including business travel and internal disputes, warranted a fresh consideration. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to examine the condonation application and supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment was bad in law because the reasons for reopening (introduction of share capital) did not match the addition made (sale of shares). The consequential reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the AO mistakenly identified the assessee as a sub-contractor of SCPL and that the assessee did not appear in the list of sub-contractors. Furthermore, the assessee's accounts did not show any payment from SCPL, and the statement relied upon by the AO did not name the assessee. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the third party whose statement was used.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not issued a fresh notice and relied solely on the assessee's initial submissions without sufficient documentary evidence. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that gross receipts cannot be equated with income, and only the profit element of alleged unaccounted receipts is taxable. It also ruled that related unaccounted cash expenditure linked to these receipts would lead to double taxation if added separately. Sub-contracting expenses were deemed genuine after reviewing documentary evidence.

The Tribunal held that gross receipts cannot be equated with income, and only the profit element of alleged unaccounted receipts is taxable. It also ruled that related unaccounted cash expenditure linked to these receipts would lead to double taxation if added separately. Sub-contracting expenses were deemed genuine after reviewing documentary evidence.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of both the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to furnish details and evidence.

The Tribunal held that gross receipts cannot be equated with income, and only the profit element of alleged unaccounted receipts is taxable. It also ruled that related unaccounted cash expenditure linked to these receipts would lead to double taxation if added separately. Sub-contracting expenses were deemed genuine after reviewing documentary evidence.

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 held that gross receipts cannot be equated with income, and only the profit element of alleged unaccounted receipts is taxable. It also ruled that related unaccounted cash expenditure linked to these receipts would lead to double taxation if added separately. Sub-contracting expenses were deemed genuine after reviewing documentary evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted if no exempt income has been earned, following various High Court decisions.

The Tribunal held that gross receipts cannot be equated with income, and only the profit element of alleged unaccounted receipts is taxable. It also ruled that related unaccounted cash expenditure linked to these receipts would lead to double taxation if added separately. Sub-contracting expenses were deemed genuine after reviewing documentary evidence.

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.