ITAT Mumbai Judgments — July 2026

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 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 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 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 held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not justified as the assessee had provided substantial documentary evidence to support the genuineness of the purchases. The Tribunal also noted that the provisions of Section 69C were not applicable as the source of expenditure was explained and the dispute was only about the genuineness of the suppliers.

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 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 admitted an additional ground of appeal concerning the timing of capital gains. It found that the assessee's rights in the property constituted a capital asset and the transfer occurred on March 31, 2017, making the capital gains taxable in AY 2017-18, not AY 2018-19. The Tribunal also noted that the purchase of the new residential unit was not complete within the stipulated period for Section 54F exemption.

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 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 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 found that the assessee claimed to have manually filed a detailed reply with supporting documents before the due date, which was not considered by the CIT(E). Therefore, the matter was restored 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 held that the 80G application was rejected without adequate opportunity of hearing and without communicating the 12AB rejection order. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) 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 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 held that interest under Section 244A is a statutory consequence of a refund becoming due and must be computed strictly in accordance with the law, up to the date of actual grant or credit of the refund. The Assessing Officer was directed to recompute the interest and examine the appropriation of the refund.

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.

The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 15.6 lakhs related to building repairs, agreeing that these expenses were for factory buildings and not rented premises. It also allowed the appeal on classifying interest income of Rs. 5,93,982/- as business income instead of income from other sources.

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 the CIT(A) was justified in allowing telescoping of the 'on-money' addition against the surrendered income, as both related to the same source. It also held that unexplained cash expenditure incurred out of 'on-money' receipts cannot be taxed again under Section 69C.

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 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 held that the AO made the disallowance without independent inquiry and solely on suspicion, as the charitable trust had valid registration under Section 80G. The AO also incorrectly invoked Section 80GGC when the deduction was claimed under Section 80G.

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 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 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 signature on a notice or document is a mandatory requirement under section 282A(1) of the Income-tax Act. An unsigned approval under section 151 is considered an unauthenticated and invalid document, rendering the subsequent notice and reassessment order bad in law.

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 CIT(A) was justified in allowing telescoping of the 'on-money' addition against the surrendered income, as both related to the same source. It also held that unexplained cash expenditure incurred out of 'on-money' receipts cannot be taxed again under Section 69C.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments in other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. It followed previous decisions of the ITAT and High Courts on this matter.

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 CIT(E) erred by examining the 80G application based on criteria for section 12AB registration. The subsequent grant of 12A/12AB registration was also not considered.

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 the appeal was rejected on a technicality without providing an opportunity to correct the mistake. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for adjudication on merits after providing a hearing to the assessee.

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 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 held that the CIT (Exemption) was not justified in attaching a caveat to the registration, stating it would be subject to the outcome of a potential Supreme Court challenge. Such observations are legally unsustainable and create uncertainty.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cash in hand from previous years, which was not controverted by the AO. Therefore, the addition under Section 69A was not justified as the source of the deposit was established.

The Tribunal held that since sales were accepted and books were not rejected, the entire purchase value could not be treated as unexplained expenditure. At most, only the profit element embedded in such purchases could be taxed.