ITAT Mumbai Judgments — July 2026

SAHIL DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs THE ITO, WARD 5(3)(1), MUMBAI., MUMBAI

ITA 2180/MUM/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed29 Jul 2026AY 2013-14Partly 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.

NARESH HARKARAM CHOUDHARY,MUMBAI vs DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

ITA 1145/MUM/2026[A Y 2021-22]Status: Disposed29 Jul 2026Partly Allowed

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.

DCIT-CC-4(2),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs NARESH HARKARAM CHOUDHARY, MUMBAI

ITA 539/MUM/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Jul 2026AY 2018-19Partly Allowed

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.

MANOJ PANDURANG MORE,MUMBAI vs ITO WARD 42(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 3683/MUM/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Jul 2026AY 2017-18Remanded

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

KORES( INDIA) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 3895/MUM/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed29 Jul 2026AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

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.

DCIT-CC-4(2),MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs NARESH HARKARAM CHOUDHARY, MUMBAI

ITA 540/MUM/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed29 Jul 2026AY 2019-20Partly Allowed

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.

DCIT (IT) 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs DBS ABANK LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5703/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed29 Jul 2026AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

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.

MILAN BIPIN MEHTA,MUMBAI vs ITO WARD 35(2)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 6530/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed29 Jul 2026AY 2014-15Remanded

The Tribunal restored the issue of unexplained cash deposits to the AO for fresh examination, allowing the assessee an opportunity to furnish corroborative evidence for the opening cash balance. The addition related to Section 54 was deleted by the CIT(A) and not challenged further.

NIRO CERAMIC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs DCIT CIRCLE 2(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 9315/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed29 Jul 2026AY 2022-23Allowed

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid due to defects in the notice and satisfaction note, and the lack of independent corroborative evidence. The Tribunal found that the jurisdictional requirements for initiating reassessment were not met.

M/S. BLUEFOREST AGRO ESTATE PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs ITO WARD 9(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1629/MUM/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed29 Jul 2026AY 2013-14Partly Allowed

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.

MIHIR RAMESH VORA,MUMBAI vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 42(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 323/MUM/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed29 Jul 2026AY 2019-20Allowed

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.

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs AGILITY CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 8683/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed29 Jul 2026AY 2013-14Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by providing documentary evidence for the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions. The repayment of the loan and share application money through banking channels before assessment proceedings were strong evidence of genuineness.

PRAJAKTA PRAKASH MESTRY,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, 41(1)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 3653/MUM/2026[2016-2017]Status: Disposed29 Jul 2026AY 2016-2017Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the property was jointly purchased and the investment was allegedly made by the husband from a bank loan. Due to the assessee's non-representation before lower authorities, these facts were not examined. The Tribunal set aside the lower authority's order and restored the issue for fresh adjudication.

ANIL ARJUN WAGHMARE ,MUMBAI vs I.T.O, WARD 32(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 1611/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed29 Jul 2026AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Since the assessee failed to present any evidence or explanations to rebut the findings, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the lower authority's decision.

DCIT (IT) 2(1)(2), MUMBAI vs DBS BANK LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4644/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: Disposed29 Jul 2026AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

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.

DBS BANK LTD,MUMBAI vs ADDL DIT (IT) RG 1, MUMBAI

ITA 4732/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: Disposed29 Jul 2026AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

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.

MRS. ROSILY JOHNY KANICHUNNAN ,MUMBAI vs ITO WARD 42(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1280/MUM/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed29 Jul 2026AY 2015-16Allowed

The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148, issued on 24.04.2022 for AY 2015-16, was invalid and barred by limitation as per the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

PUJYA SINDHI PANCHAYAT TRUST ,MUMBAI vs ITO EXEMPTION 18(3), MUMBAI

ITA 1278/MUM/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed29 Jul 2026AY 2019-20Remanded

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Sections 11 and 12 of the Act for the assessment year under consideration, as registration was granted during the pendency of appellate proceedings. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

RELIANCE LIFE SCIENCES NASHIK PRIVATE LIMITED,THANE vs DEPUTY/ ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, 15(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 3424/MUM/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed29 Jul 2026AY 2023-24Dismissed

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.

M/S ARIHANT CORPORATION,THANE vs SHRI MUKESH PRAKASH, THANE

ITA 5305/MUM/2026[2009-10]Status: Disposed29 Jul 2026AY 2009-10Partly Allowed

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.

SUKHPAL BIJARAM PRAJAPAT,MUMBAI vs DCIT CEN CIR 8(3), MUMBAI

ITA 871/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed29 Jul 2026AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the AO's estimation of income was ad hoc and lacked specific evidence, similar to a previous assessment year. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing him to examine evidence and determine if the assessee was an accommodation entry provider.

SUVIDHA SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs WARD 4(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 6905/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: Disposed29 Jul 2026AY 2008-09Dismissed

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.

AAKASH PROJECTS & INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs DCIT-8(3), MUMBAI

ITA 1558/MUM/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed29 Jul 2026AY 2010-11Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing documentary evidence of identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders. The revenue failed to provide any adverse material to disprove the transactions.

KARISHMA DIAMONDS PVT. LTD,MUMBAI vs DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(3), MUMBAI

ITA 858/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed29 Jul 2026AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the AO's estimation of income was ad hoc and lacked specific evidence, similar to a previous assessment year. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing him to examine evidence and determine if the assessee was an accommodation entry provider.

KORES( INDIA) LIMITED,MUMBAI vs DCIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 3896/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Jul 2026AY 2016-17Partly Allowed

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.

SYNERGY ART FOUNDATION LTD ,MUMBAI vs DCIT, CIRCLE 8(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 192/MUM/2026[2003-04]Status: Disposed29 Jul 2026AY 2003-04Remanded

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the rectification issue was linked to the pending appeal against the original assessment order. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) to be decided along with the pending appeal.

SATISH JAMNADAS DATTANI ,MUMBAI vs DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 155/MUM/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Jul 2026AY 2018-19Allowed

The Tribunal held that Section 43CA is not applicable to transactions involving rights in properties under construction, as it applies to the transfer of completed land or building. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted.

SHAHENSHAH KHAN,VASAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 42(1)(5), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 5140/MUM/2026[2019-2020]Status: Disposed29 Jul 2026AY 2019-2020Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the Assessee had prima facie discharged the onus of substantiating purchases by providing documentary evidence. The addition was made solely on information from the GST Department without independent material to disprove the purchases.

AJAY SAINDAS MEHRA ,JUHU MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER 17 1 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 3671/MUM/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed29 Jul 2026AY 2020-21Dismissed

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.

DBS BANK LTD.,MUMBAI vs DCIT (INTL. TAX) RANGE 2(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 5158/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed29 Jul 2026AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

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.

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs ACC LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 4014/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed29 Jul 2026AY 2015-16Dismissed

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.

DR ERNEST BORGES MEMORIAL FUND,MUMBAI vs ITO (EXEMPTION) 1(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3378/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Jul 2026AY 2016-17Allowed

The ITAT held that the rejection of a condonation application under Section 119(2)(b) does not preclude appellate authorities from examining the substantive claim on merits. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing Form 9A, considering it was the first year of electronic filing and the delay was not deliberate.

SANSKARDHAM KELAVANI MANDAL,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

ITA 6753/MUM/2026[2027-28]Status: Disposed29 Jul 2026AY 2027-28Remanded

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.

PARSHWANATH GEMS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs DCIT , CC - 8 (3), MUMBAI

ITA 865/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed29 Jul 2026AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the AO's estimation of income was ad hoc and lacked specific evidence, similar to a previous assessment year. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing him to examine evidence and determine if the assessee was an accommodation entry provider.

SHRI GYANCHAND BHANWARLAL JAIN,,MUMBAI vs DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(3),, MUMBAI

ITA 883/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: Disposed29 Jul 2026AY 2013-14Remanded

The Tribunal noted that the AO's estimation of income was ad hoc and lacked specific evidence, similar to a previous assessment year. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing him to examine evidence and determine if the assessee was an accommodation entry provider.

ITO- 6(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs CASA BUILDERS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

ITA 7887/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2017-18Dismissed

The Tribunal held that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2022, which clarified the position on disallowance even without exempt income, is prospective. Therefore, for the assessment year 2017-18, the disallowance was not sustainable if no exempt income was earned.

ITO 22 2 1, PAREL vs LAKSHACHANDI COLUMBIA DEVELOPERS, SANTACRUZ

ITA 797/MUM/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2010-11Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The AO's own remand report confirmed that the assessee had substantiated the purchases with proper documentation and banking transactions, negating the initial allegation of bogus purchases.

AKSHAR AGRI INDIA LLP,VASHI,NAVI MUMBAI, THANE vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 28(1)(1), MUMBAI, VASHI,NAVI MUMBAI, THANE

ITA 4792/MUM/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2020-21Remanded

The Tribunal observed that the appellate order was passed ex parte due to the assessee's non-appearance. Considering the principles of natural justice and the documents produced by the assessee, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

TORUS FINANCIAL MARKETS PVT LTD,SEWREE, MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(2)(1), MUMBAI, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MARINE LINES MUMBAI

ITA 4994/MUM/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2023-24Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present its case due to reasons beyond its control for non-compliance.

SHIV TRADING CO,MUMBAI vs INCOME-TAX OFFICER-25(1)(2)/ CURRENT JURISDICTION - INCOME-TAX OFFICER - 31(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 5090/MUM/2026[2009-10]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2009-10Dismissed

The Tribunal held that once an appellate authority declines to condone delay, it cannot adjudicate the appeal on merits. However, since a subsequent appeal on the same assessment order was already sub-judice, the present appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

SANJANA CRYOGENIC STORAGES LTD,MUMBAI vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 757/MUM/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2015-16Dismissed

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, following its own previous decisions for earlier assessment years where the issue was decided against the assessee. However, it directed that any favorable decision from the High Court or Supreme Court on the pending issue should be followed for the current year.

PRASAD BABAN JAVRAT,BHAYANDER vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

ITA 2522/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2022-23Remanded

The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority should have considered the delay more sympathetically, given the cause and the astronomical quantum of additions. The Tribunal set aside the orders and restored the quantum appeal and penalty appeals to the file of the first appellate authority for de novo adjudication on merits.

PRASAD BABAN JAVRAT,BHAYANDER vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

ITA 2521/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2022-23Remanded

The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority should have considered the delay more sympathetically, given the cause and the astronomical quantum of additions. The Tribunal set aside the orders and restored the quantum appeal and penalty appeals to the file of the first appellate authority for de novo adjudication on merits.

PRASAD BABAN JAVRAT,BHAYANDER vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI

ITA 2520/MUM/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2022-23Remanded

The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority should have considered the delay more sympathetically, given the cause and the astronomical quantum of additions. The Tribunal set aside the orders and restored the quantum appeal and penalty appeals to the file of the first appellate authority for de novo adjudication on merits.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 8 2 1, MUMBAI vs SHIRDI PANEL INDUSTRIES LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 3551/MUM/2026[SHIRDI PANEL INDUSTRIES LIMITE]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026Remanded

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders were against statutory provisions as they lacked the power to set aside penalty appeals to the AO. Therefore, the appeals were restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

M/S. LEELA LACE HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs DCIT, CIRCLE 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 362/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the sanction for issuing the notice under Section 148 was granted by an incompetent authority, rendering the reassessment proceedings void ab initio.

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS,TDS WARD 2(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 2453/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee bank could not be treated as an assessee in default for non-deduction of tax at source because it was bound by the interim order of the Madras High Court. The subsequent settlement of the substantive issue by the Supreme Court does not alter the position during the period of the binding interim order.

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS,TDS WARD 2(2)(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 2440/MUM/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2017-18Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee bank could not be treated as an assessee in default for non-deduction of tax at source because it was bound by the interim order of the Madras High Court. The subsequent settlement of the substantive issue by the Supreme Court does not alter the position during the period of the binding interim order.

STATE BANK OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs ACIT, TDS, TDS CIRCLE 2(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 3952/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2016-17Allowed

The Tribunal held that the assessee bank could not be treated as an assessee in default for non-deduction of tax at source because it was bound by the interim order of the Madras High Court. The subsequent settlement of the substantive issue by the Supreme Court does not alter the position during the period of the binding interim order.

ACIT CC 2 4 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs CITYGOLD INVESTMENTS PVT LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2416/MUM/2026[2014-15]Status: Disposed28 Jul 2026AY 2014-15Dismissed

The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A), finding that the AO relied solely on an investigation report without independent inquiry and that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence. The fact that the money was refunded and accepted in a subsequent assessment also supported the assessee's case.