ITAT Mumbai Judgments — July 2026

The Tribunal found that the 80G rejection was solely based on the 12AB rejection without independent examination. Considering the CBDT circular's intent to alleviate procedural hardships, the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal found the defect to be purely technical and not affecting the merits of the assessee's claim. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to rectify the defect.

The Tribunal found that the order was passed ex parte and without considering all relevant material. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the applications were rejected on the ground of limitation without affording the assessee an effective opportunity of hearing. The assessee should be allowed to seek condonation of delay as per CBDT guidelines.

The Tribunal held that the applications were rejected on the ground of limitation without affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) to consider the condonation of delay application.

The Tribunal held that the CIT's caveat was legally unsustainable and could not dilute the binding effect of the High Court's judgment. The registration and approval, once granted in compliance with a binding court order, should not be made conditional on speculative future events.

The Tribunal held that the applications were rejected on the ground of limitation without affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) to consider the condonation of delay application.

The tribunal held that passing the orders before the expiry of the granted time violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside and the matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that passing orders before the expiry of the granted compliance time violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemption) was not justified in attaching a caveat to the grant of registration and approval. The caveat was legally unsustainable as it diluted the binding effect of the High Court's judgment and created uncertainty.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not afforded an adequate opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the matters to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is directed to re-examine the applications after providing the assessee with an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the impugned orders were passed ex parte and violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the orders were set aside to allow the assessee a proper opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice require an effective opportunity of hearing and that any deficiencies should be specifically communicated. The CIT(E) should have pointed out specific defects before rejecting the application.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) passed the order prematurely without considering the assessee's request for adjournment and documentation. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.

For assessment years 2014-15 to 2019-20, the Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C was unsustainable due to the absence of incriminating material pertaining to those years. For assessment year 2020-21, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

For assessment years 2014-15 to 2019-20, the Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C was unsustainable due to the absence of incriminating material pertaining to those years. For assessment year 2020-21, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

For assessment years 2014-15 to 2019-20, the Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C was unsustainable due to the absence of incriminating material pertaining to those years. For assessment year 2020-21, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

For assessment years 2014-15 to 2019-20, the Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C was unsustainable due to the absence of incriminating material pertaining to those years. For assessment year 2020-21, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

For assessment years 2014-15 to 2019-20, the Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C was unsustainable due to the absence of incriminating material pertaining to those years. For assessment year 2020-21, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

For assessment years 2014-15 to 2019-20, the Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C was unsustainable due to the absence of incriminating material pertaining to those years. For assessment year 2020-21, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without deciding the issues on merits. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and deciding the issues in a speaking order.

The Tribunal held that the period of limitation for filing an appeal should commence from the date the assessee was made aware of the actual tax demand, not from the initial NIL demand notice. The delay in informing the assessee of the demand due to technical glitches cannot be attributed to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that if the revision order under Section 263 is quashed, the consequential assessment order passed based on it becomes null and void. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision to treat the appeal as infructuous was upheld.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence regarding TDS and remanded the issue to the AO for de novo assessment. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the facts were identical to previous years where the addition was deleted. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's explanation for the delay and the recent amendment empowering PCIT/CIT to condone delays. Consequently, the order of the CIT(E) was set aside, and the matter was remitted back for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147/148 was invalid as it was based on a change of opinion without any fresh tangible material. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence regarding TDS and remanded the issue to the AO for de novo assessment. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. On merits, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to verify withdrawals and corresponding deposits to explain the cash credits.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions were deleted by allowing telescoping, the basis for levying penalty under Section 271AAA no longer existed. Therefore, the penalty order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that prior to the insertion of Section 23(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, there was no specific statutory provision to tax the notional annual letting value of completed but unsold stock-in-trade held by builders. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT(A) was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that an allotment letter can, in principle, constitute an agreement for the purpose of the first proviso to Section 56(2)(x). However, due to factual inconsistencies regarding payments and property allocation, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal decided that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the reopening of assessment. The grounds raised by the assessee regarding the validity of the notice under section 148 and the assumption of jurisdiction were found to be substantial.

The Tribunal held that the period of limitation for filing an appeal should commence from the date the assessee was made aware of the actual tax demand, not from the initial NIL demand notice. The delay in informing the assessee of the demand due to technical glitches cannot be attributed to the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the validity of the proceedings under Sections 147/148, distinguishing the appellant's case from those requiring Section 153C, as only information was passed to the AO, not seized material. It affirmed that the share transactions were sham and merely accommodation entries, thereby confirming the AO's addition as income from other sources, as the Mukesh Choksi group was found to be involved in providing such entries.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's explanation to be bona fide. The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one effective opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) did not fully consider the assessee's explanation for the delay or examine actual violations regarding activities outside India or investments. The Tribunal restored the matter for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict interest expenditure to the extent of interest income earned, following previous ITAT rulings. Similarly, the addition for household expenses was reduced to an amount deemed reasonable by the ITAT in earlier years.

The Tribunal found that the repeated filing of returns in response to deficiency notices complicated the issues. The Tribunal set aside the appellate order and restored all issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

For assessment years 2014-15 to 2019-20, the Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under section 153C was unsustainable due to the absence of incriminating material pertaining to those years. For assessment year 2020-21, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) had rejected the 12AB application based on alleged defects and inconsistencies. The 80G rejection was consequential. The Tribunal set aside both orders and restored the matters to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, following a previous decision in the assessee's own case, found the 30% disallowance to be excessive. It directed the Assessing Officer to restrict the disallowance to 10% of the expenditure.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to furnish the amended documents. The CIT(E) was instructed to allow a fair opportunity to the assessee before passing a fresh order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the additional grounds raised by the assessee, particularly the disallowance under Section 14A. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that additions made solely on the basis of third-party statements and uncorroborated data, without providing the assessee an effective opportunity for cross-examination, are unsustainable. Suspicion cannot substitute for proof.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to furnish the amended documents. The CIT(E) was instructed to allow a fair opportunity to the assessee before passing a fresh order.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) had rejected the 12AB application based on alleged defects and inconsistencies. The 80G rejection was consequential. The Tribunal set aside both orders and restored the matters to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the rejection of the 80G application was solely based on the rejection of the 12AB registration. Since the 12AB matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, the 80G matter was also restored for fresh consideration.