ITAT Mumbai Judgments — July 2026

The Tribunal held that CSR expenditure, even if mandatory, is eligible for deduction under Section 80G if the conditions of that section are satisfied, especially since the expenditure was already disallowed under Section 37. The Tribunal followed previous decisions that allowed such deductions.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. Dismissal for non-prosecution without deciding the issues on merits is unsustainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the sanction for issuing the notice under Section 148 was obtained from the incorrect authority (PCIT instead of PCCIT) as per Section 151(ii) of the Act, thus vitiating the reassessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the time limit prescribed under Section 144C(4) is mandatory and jurisdictional. An assessment order passed beyond this period is void and cannot be cured under Section 292B.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no documentary evidence to prove that the assessee's business had commenced. The assessee failed to provide any supporting material despite multiple opportunities.

The Tribunal held that additions on issues other than those forming the basis of reopening are not permissible, following the principle laid down by the Bombay High Court. The Tribunal also found that the Revenue failed to discharge its initial burden to prove that the impugned transactions were sham or that the assessee was part of an alleged accommodation entry arrangement.

The Tribunal held that additions on issues other than those forming the basis of reopening are not permissible, following the principle laid down by the Bombay High Court. The Tribunal also found that the Revenue failed to discharge its initial burden to prove that the impugned transactions were sham or that the assessee was part of an alleged accommodation entry arrangement.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in allowing relief without proper verification of evidence, especially when the assessee failed to substantiate claims even during remand. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the AO's additions were restored.

The Tribunal held that the evidence furnished by the assessee regarding the non-conclusion of the sale transaction required proper verification. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus by providing documentary evidence of the loan's identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness. The non-service of notice to the lender alone could not justify the addition when sufficient evidence was on record.

The Tribunal held that CSR expenditure, even if mandatory, is eligible for deduction under Section 80G if the conditions of that section are satisfied, especially since the expenditure was already disallowed under Section 37. The Tribunal followed previous decisions that allowed such deductions.

The Tribunal found that the applicability of the proviso to section 56(2)(vii)(b) depended on factual verification of the agreement, consideration fixation date, and payment mode. It granted the assessee another opportunity to substantiate their claim.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully discharged the burden cast upon it under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the identity of the creditors, their financial capacity, and the genuineness of the transactions were established. The bank statements showed that loans were advanced through normal banking channels from disclosed accounts, with no evidence of cash deposits preceding the loans. The Tribunal noted that the AO's observations regarding 'nominal income' and 'TDS refund' of lenders, even if factually correct, could not override audited balance sheets disclosing substantial net worth, especially when these statements were not shown to be fabricated. The AO had not undertaken any inquiry to discredit the audited financial statements or demonstrated that the funds were fictitious. The Tribunal also considered that statements of third parties, particularly when general, disputed, or retracted, cannot by themselves displace documentary evidence unless supported by independent corroboration. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that Coordinate Benches had previously examined the financial affairs of these very lender companies in the assessee's group cases and other matters, accepting their creditworthiness and the genuineness of transactions. Crucially, for subsequent Assessment Years (2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21), loans from substantially the same parties were accepted as genuine, with no distinguishing factual features presented for the year under appeal. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 5,50,00,000/- under Section 68 and the consequential disallowance of interest of Rs. 28,00,208/- were deleted. The appeals for subsequent AYs were dismissed on identical grounds.

The Tribunal held that the crucial issue is the year in which remission or cessation of liability occurred. Since additional evidence regarding write-back in the succeeding year was not available before the lower authorities, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, which confirmed the addition. The CIT(A) noted the supplier's non-response to notices, failure to verify the address, and the assessee's inability to provide reliable evidence of goods movement.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully discharged the burden cast upon it under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the identity of the creditors, their financial capacity, and the genuineness of the transactions were established. The bank statements showed that loans were advanced through normal banking channels from disclosed accounts, with no evidence of cash deposits preceding the loans. The Tribunal noted that the AO's observations regarding 'nominal income' and 'TDS refund' of lenders, even if factually correct, could not override audited balance sheets disclosing substantial net worth, especially when these statements were not shown to be fabricated. The AO had not undertaken any inquiry to discredit the audited financial statements or demonstrated that the funds were fictitious. The Tribunal also considered that statements of third parties, particularly when general, disputed, or retracted, cannot by themselves displace documentary evidence unless supported by independent corroboration. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that Coordinate Benches had previously examined the financial affairs of these very lender companies in the assessee's group cases and other matters, accepting their creditworthiness and the genuineness of transactions. Crucially, for subsequent Assessment Years (2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21), loans from substantially the same parties were accepted as genuine, with no distinguishing factual features presented for the year under appeal. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 5,50,00,000/- under Section 68 and the consequential disallowance of interest of Rs. 28,00,208/- were deleted. The appeals for subsequent AYs were dismissed on identical grounds.

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, which had addressed all grounds raised by the assessee, including limitation. The assessee failed to appear or provide any material to controvert the findings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), stating that substantive justice should prevail over technicalities. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on all grounds, including jurisdictional issues.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s rejection was based on a factually incorrect premise that no compliance was made. Since a reply was filed, the rejection order was vitiated and the matter needed to be reconsidered.

The Tribunal held that while non-filing of the return initially might lead to deemed concealment under Explanation (3) to Section 271(1)(c), the 'tax sought to be evaded' must be determined considering taxes already paid. Since the TDS exceeded the assessed tax liability, there was no tax sought to be evaded.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully discharged the burden cast upon it under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the identity of the creditors, their financial capacity, and the genuineness of the transactions were established. The bank statements showed that loans were advanced through normal banking channels from disclosed accounts, with no evidence of cash deposits preceding the loans. The Tribunal noted that the AO's observations regarding 'nominal income' and 'TDS refund' of lenders, even if factually correct, could not override audited balance sheets disclosing substantial net worth, especially when these statements were not shown to be fabricated. The AO had not undertaken any inquiry to discredit the audited financial statements or demonstrated that the funds were fictitious. The Tribunal also considered that statements of third parties, particularly when general, disputed, or retracted, cannot by themselves displace documentary evidence unless supported by independent corroboration. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that Coordinate Benches had previously examined the financial affairs of these very lender companies in the assessee's group cases and other matters, accepting their creditworthiness and the genuineness of transactions. Crucially, for subsequent Assessment Years (2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21), loans from substantially the same parties were accepted as genuine, with no distinguishing factual features presented for the year under appeal. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 5,50,00,000/- under Section 68 and the consequential disallowance of interest of Rs. 28,00,208/- were deleted. The appeals for subsequent AYs were dismissed on identical grounds.

The Tribunal held that the provisions related to amalgamation/slump sale, which the AO relied upon, were not applicable as the goodwill was not acquired from the amalgamating/transferor company. The Tribunal directed the AO to allow depreciation on goodwill.

The Tribunal held that additions on issues other than those forming the basis of reopening are not permissible, following the principle laid down by the Bombay High Court. The Tribunal also found that the Revenue failed to discharge its initial burden to prove that the impugned transactions were sham or that the assessee was part of an alleged accommodation entry arrangement.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, finding that the assessee failed to discharge its onus to comply with statutory notices and provide reasonable cause for non-compliance. No new material was presented to rebut the findings.

The tribunal held that immunity under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme does not extend to penalties independent of the quantum dispute. However, due to lack of factual details regarding the computation of turnover from futures and options, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully discharged the burden cast upon it under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the identity of the creditors, their financial capacity, and the genuineness of the transactions were established. The bank statements showed that loans were advanced through normal banking channels from disclosed accounts, with no evidence of cash deposits preceding the loans. The Tribunal noted that the AO's observations regarding 'nominal income' and 'TDS refund' of lenders, even if factually correct, could not override audited balance sheets disclosing substantial net worth, especially when these statements were not shown to be fabricated. The AO had not undertaken any inquiry to discredit the audited financial statements or demonstrated that the funds were fictitious. The Tribunal also considered that statements of third parties, particularly when general, disputed, or retracted, cannot by themselves displace documentary evidence unless supported by independent corroboration. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that Coordinate Benches had previously examined the financial affairs of these very lender companies in the assessee's group cases and other matters, accepting their creditworthiness and the genuineness of transactions. Crucially, for subsequent Assessment Years (2018-19, 2019-20, 2020-21), loans from substantially the same parties were accepted as genuine, with no distinguishing factual features presented for the year under appeal. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 5,50,00,000/- under Section 68 and the consequential disallowance of interest of Rs. 28,00,208/- were deleted. The appeals for subsequent AYs were dismissed on identical grounds.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, finding that the assessee failed to discharge its onus to comply with statutory notices and provide reasonable cause for non-compliance. No new material was presented to rebut the findings.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had not considered the information submitted by the assessee, leading to a rejection without a decision on merits. Therefore, the matter was set aside for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the revenue authorities was unsustainable as there was no independent or corroborative evidence to establish the assessee's involvement in fraudulent CCM activity. A confirmatory letter from the broker also stated the assessee was not involved in CCM.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had not considered the information submitted by the assessee, leading to a rejection without a decision on merits. Therefore, the matter was set aside for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal followed its own precedent for a prior assessment year. It restricted the disallowance on marketing and sales promotion expenses to 20% of the total expenses and upheld the deletion of additions on work-in-progress and royalty payments.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, finding that the assessee failed to discharge its onus to comply with statutory notices and provide reasonable cause for non-compliance. No new material was presented to rebut the findings.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect involved in the appeal was below the monetary threshold prescribed by the CBDT for filing appeals before the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the AO's acceptance of the deduction under Section 80G, based on a plausible interpretation of law and supported by coordinate bench decisions, was legally sustainable. Therefore, the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that since the incriminating material belonged to a third party, proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153C, not Section 147. Therefore, the assessment order and consequential proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. This was done to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard, despite the assessee's past non-compliance.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as the grievance was redressed by the Assessing Officer. The legal issue regarding the CIT(A)'s jurisdiction was kept open.

The Tribunal observed that crucial documents supporting the vacancy claim were not produced before the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the payments made by the assessee for availing standard satellite communication services from Intelsat do not constitute 'royalty' under the Income Tax Act or the India-USA DTAA. Consequently, the assessee had no obligation to deduct tax at source.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. This was done to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard, despite the assessee's past non-compliance.

The Tribunal observed that crucial documents supporting the vacancy claim were not produced before the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was barred by limitation. The reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond the 'surviving period' of limitation available after considering the extensions and the directions of the Supreme Court in Ashish Agarwal.

The Tribunal upheld the validity of the reassessment proceedings. However, it found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated all the grounds of appeal related to the merits of the addition. Therefore, the issues on merits were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that a reasonable opportunity was not provided and specific deficiencies were not clearly stated. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus by providing documentary evidence for the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions. The AO failed to bring any contrary material on record to disprove these facts.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals. The assessee's cross-objection for AY 2015-16 was partly allowed, and the cross-objection for AY 2018-19 was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal held that the payments made by the assessee for availing standard satellite communication services from Intelsat do not constitute 'royalty' under the Income Tax Act or the India-USA DTAA. Consequently, the assessee had no obligation to deduct tax at source.

The Tribunal held that the payments made by the assessee for availing standard satellite communication services from Intelsat do not constitute 'royalty' under the Income Tax Act or the India-USA DTAA. Consequently, the assessee had no obligation to deduct tax at source.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated on a change of opinion, without disposing of objections, and based on borrowed satisfaction are invalid. The reassessment was quashed as bad in law.