ITAT Mumbai Judgments — July 2026

The Tribunal held that the reassessment orders were bad in law because the AO failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 148A of the Act, as well as the directions of the Supreme Court in the Ashish Agarwal case. For later assessment years, it was also found that the AO failed to obtain prior approval from the appropriate authority as required by Section 151.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment orders were bad in law because the AO failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 148A of the Act, as well as the directions of the Supreme Court in the Ashish Agarwal case. For later assessment years, it was also found that the AO failed to obtain prior approval from the appropriate authority as required by Section 151.

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 held that the reassessment orders were bad in law because the AO failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 148A of the Act, as well as the directions of the Supreme Court in the Ashish Agarwal case. For later assessment years, it was also found that the AO failed to obtain prior approval from the appropriate authority as required by Section 151.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment orders were bad in law because the AO failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 148A of the Act, as well as the directions of the Supreme Court in the Ashish Agarwal case. For later assessment years, it was also found that the AO failed to obtain prior approval from the appropriate authority as required by Section 151.

The Tribunal held that since the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on information from a search and seizure action, the assessment should have been done under Section 153C, not Section 147. Therefore, the notice under Section 148 and the subsequent assessment order were without jurisdiction.

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 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 since the assessee had inadvertently failed to furnish the prior registration certificate and has now produced it, the matter should be reconsidered by the CIT(Exemptions). The rejection of the 80G application was consequential to the 12AB rejection, thus it also needs to be re-examined.

The Tribunal held that interest received by the assessee under Section 244A of the Act is taxable under Article 11 of the India-Singapore DTAA, not as business profits attributable to the PE. The Tribunal relied on the ratio laid down in Clough Engineering Ltd. and affirmed by the Bombay High Court in DIT (Intl Tax) vs. Credit Agricole Indosuez and DHL Operations B.V. The assessee is entitled to the treaty rate of tax prescribed under Article 11(2)(b), and the AO is directed to recompute the tax liability accordingly. This ground raised by the assessee is allowed. Regarding the levy of surcharge and education cess, the Tribunal agreed with the Kolkata Tribunal's decision in DIC Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v. ADIT that surcharge and education cess cannot be levied over and above the rate prescribed under Article 11 of the DTAA, as it would exceed the contractual limit. However, this principle does not extend to cases where the DTAA Article (like Article 7) only allocates taxing rights and provides a basis for profit determination without prescribing a rate. In such cases, the Income-tax Act, including surcharge and cess, applies unless the Treaty expressly states otherwise. The AO is directed to apply tax rates as per this principle. This ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed. The appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue for all years are partly allowed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals in limine due to the unexplained delay and the assessee's failure to prosecute the appeals. However, liberty was granted to seek recall of the order by substantiating the reasons for delay and non-appearance.

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

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as the grievance was redressed. The legal issue regarding CIT(A)'s jurisdiction to enhance assessment beyond Section 143(1) was kept open.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were unsustainable due to a lack of substantive material and corroborating evidence. The AO's estimations were based on assumptions and presumptions, not on concrete proof of transactions by the assessee.

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 issue is settled by the Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The admission of an SLP in another case does not dilute the binding precedent of Checkmate Services. Therefore, the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) is confirmed.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had inadvertently failed to furnish the prior registration certificate and has now produced it, the matter should be reconsidered by the CIT(Exemptions). The rejection of the 80G application was consequential to the 12AB rejection, thus it also needs to be re-examined.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's challenge to the reopening proceedings and agreed that a fresh examination of factual issues was necessary due to the ex-parte assessment.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the limitation period, rendering the subsequent assessment order void-ab-initio. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) also did not survive.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to comply with the notice and that the rejection order violated the principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) 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 held that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to comply with the notice and that the rejection order violated the principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) 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 restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The AO was directed to decide the issues afresh after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that CSR expenditure, when contributed to institutions eligible under Section 80G, cannot be refused deduction. The PCIT's order under Section 263 was found to be bad in law as the AO's order was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 on July 28, 2022, was beyond the surviving limitation period available as of June 30, 2021, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were invalid.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation of sufficient cause. The Tribunal also set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order and restored the matter for de novo adjudication, emphasizing the principles of natural justice.

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 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 dismissed the appeals in limine due to the unexplained delay and the assessee's failure to prosecute the appeals. However, liberty was granted to seek recall of the order by substantiating the reasons for delay and non-appearance.

The Tribunal, in the absence of the assessee's representation and submissions, decided to allow the revenue's appeals without delving into the merits. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recalling of the order by substantiating reasons for non-compliance.

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 held that alleged on-money could only be considered in the assessee's hands for shops owned by them or where independent evidence proved their funding. For other shops, the investment had to be examined in the hands of the real liable person. The addition based on WhatsApp chats was confirmed as the assessee failed to reconcile it with disclosed turnover.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided an effective opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay before deciding the condonation application. The impugned orders were set aside for lack of sufficient opportunity.

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 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 found that complete details and supporting evidence regarding the commission expenditure were not properly appreciated by the lower authorities. To ensure a just decision, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that interest received by the assessee under Section 244A of the Act is taxable under Article 11 of the India-Singapore DTAA, not as business profits attributable to the PE. The Tribunal relied on the ratio laid down in Clough Engineering Ltd. and affirmed by the Bombay High Court in DIT (Intl Tax) vs. Credit Agricole Indosuez and DHL Operations B.V. The assessee is entitled to the treaty rate of tax prescribed under Article 11(2)(b), and the AO is directed to recompute the tax liability accordingly. This ground raised by the assessee is allowed. Regarding the levy of surcharge and education cess, the Tribunal agreed with the Kolkata Tribunal's decision in DIC Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v. ADIT that surcharge and education cess cannot be levied over and above the rate prescribed under Article 11 of the DTAA, as it would exceed the contractual limit. However, this principle does not extend to cases where the DTAA Article (like Article 7) only allocates taxing rights and provides a basis for profit determination without prescribing a rate. In such cases, the Income-tax Act, including surcharge and cess, applies unless the Treaty expressly states otherwise. The AO is directed to apply tax rates as per this principle. This ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed. The appeals filed by the assessee and the revenue for all years are partly allowed.

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 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 held that alleged on-money could only be considered in the assessee's hands for shops owned by them or where independent evidence proved their funding. For other shops, the investment had to be examined in the hands of the real liable person. The addition based on WhatsApp chats was confirmed as the assessee failed to reconcile it with disclosed turnover.

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 CIT(E) misinterpreted the provisions. The assessee, being an educational institution solely for educational purposes and substantially financed by the government, is eligible for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) without requiring approval or registration under Section 12A.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeals in limine due to the unexplained delay and the assessee's failure to prosecute the appeals. However, liberty was granted to seek recall of the order by substantiating the reasons for delay and non-appearance.

The Tribunal noted that the addition made by the AO included LTCG from shares other than the penny stock M/s. Toyam Industries Ltd., which was the subject of the adverse report. The departmental authorities failed to properly examine the facts and the entire addition was not solely based on the penny stock issue.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's aggregation approach for sale of software and marketing support services. It held that the determination of arm's length price for intra-group services at Nil was not justified and deleted the entire transfer pricing adjustment.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 18.25 crores to Neelkanth Cities Pvt. Ltd. was unjustified as it represented repayment of earlier loans, supported by bank statements. For other lenders, the Assessing Officer failed to make necessary inquiries. Therefore, the additions made under Section 69 were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the entire amount of disputed purchases could not be added, and only the profit element embedded therein was taxable. Following a co-ordinate bench decision, the addition was restricted to 10% of the disputed purchases.

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.