ITAT Mumbai Judgments — July 2026

The Tribunal found that while some disallowance was warranted based on the statements, the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s disallowances were excessive. The Tribunal reduced the disallowance on salary and staff welfare expenses to 10% of cash payments.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of applications for procedural deficiencies without examining the charitable objects and genuineness of activities violates principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to provide all necessary documents.

The Tribunal held that the advance of funds to another public charitable trust with similar objects constitutes a valid application of income for the purposes of Section 11, following its own previous decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention regarding the tax effect. Consequently, the revenue's appeal was dismissed due to low tax effect, rendering the assessee's cross-objection infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the absence of an explicit irrevocability clause should not be the sole ground for rejection, following a High Court judgment. In the case of ITR-7 filing, the Tribunal found bona fide reasons and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the absence of an explicit irrevocability clause should not be the sole ground for rejection, following a High Court judgment. In the case of ITR-7 filing, the Tribunal found bona fide reasons and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to sub-contracting expenses and cash receipts from scrap sales, finding them to be unsubstantiated or double taxation. The Tribunal also noted that once the profit element of on-money receipts is taxed, no separate addition for corresponding expenditure is warranted.

The Tribunal found that while some disallowance was warranted based on the statements, the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s disallowances were excessive. The Tribunal reduced the disallowance on salary and staff welfare expenses to 10% of cash payments.

The Tribunal found that while some disallowance was warranted based on the statements, the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s disallowances were excessive. The Tribunal reduced the disallowance on salary and staff welfare expenses to 10% of cash payments.

The Tribunal held that the rejection was based on procedural non-compliance rather than an examination of the trust's charitable objects or genuineness of activities. It was decided that a further opportunity should be granted to the assessee to rectify the deficiencies.

The Tribunal found that while some disallowance was warranted based on the statements, the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s disallowances were excessive. The Tribunal reduced the disallowance on salary and staff welfare expenses to 10% of cash payments.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not effectively represent their case. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that while some disallowance was warranted based on the statements, the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s disallowances were excessive. The Tribunal reduced the disallowance on salary and staff welfare expenses to 10% of cash payments.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's claims were admitted, their factual correctness and allowability required verification. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for limited verification of the revised financial statements and deductions.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without considering the facts of the present case, instead discussing unrelated facts from another matter. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal upheld the cancellation of the assessee's registration, finding no infirmity in the CIT(E)'s order. The assessee's failure to provide credible documentary evidence for the donations and to rebut the findings led to this decision.

The Tribunal held that the absence of an explicit irrevocability clause should not be the sole ground for rejection, following a High Court judgment. In the case of ITR-7 filing, the Tribunal found bona fide reasons and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were based on loose papers and internal compilations, which were not substantiated by independent incriminating material. The Tribunal also noted procedural infirmities like lack of proper approval under Section 153D and denial of cross-examination.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions under section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material found during the search. Since the factual determination of whether the assessment was abated and if incriminating material existed was not clearly adjudicated, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 was invalid. This was because the PCIT acted on a proposal from a subordinate authority, abdicating his independent powers, and also because the AO had followed a binding High Court decision.

The Tribunal found that while some disallowance was warranted based on the statements, the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s disallowances were excessive. The Tribunal reduced the disallowance on salary and staff welfare expenses to 10% of cash payments.

The Tribunal found that while some disallowance was warranted based on the statements, the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s disallowances were excessive. The Tribunal reduced the disallowance on salary and staff welfare expenses to 10% of cash payments.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions under section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material found during the search. Since the factual determination of whether the assessment was abated and if incriminating material existed was not clearly adjudicated, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). The tribunal found that the seized material and statements from the search operation constituted unimpeachable evidence of the assessee's involvement in the transactions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Both the disallowance of export incentive write-off and the addition under Section 68 were set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions under section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material found during the search. Since the factual determination of whether the assessment was abated and if incriminating material existed was not clearly adjudicated, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that restoring the matter to the CIT(E) would serve substantial justice. The CIT(E) is directed to re-examine the application after considering all materials and providing a proper hearing.

The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 54 cannot be restricted to 50% solely due to joint ownership. The assessee is entitled to exemption for the entire long-term capital gain if the investment is attributable to him.

The Tribunal found that while some disallowance was warranted based on the statements, the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s disallowances were excessive. The Tribunal reduced the disallowance on salary and staff welfare expenses to 10% of cash payments.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions under section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material found during the search. Since the factual determination of whether the assessment was abated and if incriminating material existed was not clearly adjudicated, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that while some disallowance was warranted based on the statements, the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s disallowances were excessive. The Tribunal reduced the disallowance on salary and staff welfare expenses to 10% of cash payments.

The Tribunal found that while some disallowance was warranted based on the statements, the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s disallowances were excessive. The Tribunal reduced the disallowance on salary and staff welfare expenses to 10% of cash payments.

The Tribunal found that while some disallowance was warranted based on the statements, the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s disallowances were excessive. The Tribunal reduced the disallowance on salary and staff welfare expenses to 10% of cash payments.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions under section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material found during the search. Since the factual determination of whether the assessment was abated and if incriminating material existed was not clearly adjudicated, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions under section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material found during the search. Since the factual determination of whether the assessment was abated and if incriminating material existed was not clearly adjudicated, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the rejection was based on procedural non-compliance rather than an examination of the trust's charitable objects or genuineness of activities. It was decided that a further opportunity should be granted to the assessee to rectify the deficiencies.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) with directions to consider the assessee's application for condonation of delay sympathetically. The CIT(A) was also instructed to decide the appeal on its merits after condoning the delay.

The Tribunal held that for unabated assessment years, additions under section 153A are permissible only if based on incriminating material found during the search. Since the factual determination of whether the assessment was abated and if incriminating material existed was not clearly adjudicated, the appeals were remitted back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal found that the revenue authorities had not verified the documents submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after verifying the documents and providing an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the absence of an explicit irrevocability clause should not be the sole ground for rejection, following a High Court judgment. In the case of ITR-7 filing, the Tribunal found bona fide reasons and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were based on loose papers and internal compilations, which were not substantiated by independent incriminating material. The Tribunal also noted procedural infirmities like lack of proper approval under Section 153D and denial of cross-examination.

The Tribunal found that while some disallowance was warranted based on the statements, the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s disallowances were excessive. The Tribunal reduced the disallowance on salary and staff welfare expenses to 10% of cash payments.

The Tribunal found that while some disallowance was warranted based on the statements, the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s disallowances were excessive. The Tribunal reduced the disallowance on salary and staff welfare expenses to 10% of cash payments.

The Tribunal found that while some disallowance was warranted based on the statements, the Assessing Officer's and CIT(A)'s disallowances were excessive. The Tribunal reduced the disallowance on salary and staff welfare expenses to 10% of cash payments.

The Tribunal held that brought forward long-term capital losses can be set off against capital gains deemed to be short-term under Section 50, following jurisdictional High Court precedents. The deeming fiction under Section 50 is limited to computation, and the gains are then treated under other provisions for set-off.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had discharged the onus by providing sufficient documentary evidence. The Revenue failed to present specific material demonstrating the assessee's involvement in price manipulation or collusion.

The Tribunal held that the absence of an explicit irrevocability clause should not be the sole ground for rejection, following a High Court judgment. In the case of ITR-7 filing, the Tribunal found bona fide reasons and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden by providing sufficient documentary evidence, including confirmations, ledger copies, bank statements, and financial statements of the lender. The Assessing Officer failed to point out any discrepancies or controvert the evidence.

The Tribunal held that surcharge must be levied based on income thresholds and slab rates, not automatically at the highest rate, even for private discretionary trusts. The issue of interest under sections 234B and 234C is consequential.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) is directed to verify the date of service of the penalty order and, if within limitation, adjudicate the appeal on merits.