ITAT Mumbai Judgments — August 2026

The Tribunal considered the submission that the appeal was a duplicate and the Revenue did not dispute this. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that diamond grading and certification services do not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) as they do not involve making available any technical knowledge or skill to the assessee. Consequently, no obligation to deduct TDS under Section 195 arose.

The Tribunal held that sustaining the transfer-pricing adjustment in the current year would lead to double taxation if the same amount was offered to tax in the subsequent year. The AO was directed to delete the adjustment subject to verification of the write-back and taxability in AY 2023-24.

The Tribunal held that while contemporaneous documentary evidence for improvements made over a long period might be unavailable, a fair and reasonable estimate of the cost of improvement is allowable. The Tribunal estimated the cost of improvement at Rs. 5,50,000/-.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present evidence. This was done in the interest of substantial justice, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the additions.

The Tribunal held that an allotment letter, when acted upon by making payments through banking channels, can be considered as an agreement to sell for the purpose of the proviso to Section 56(2)(x). Therefore, the stamp duty value on the date of the allotment letter should be considered.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had made a plausible claim based on judicial pronouncements, and merely making a claim not sustainable in law does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that a technical error in selecting a wrong provision should not penalize the assessee, especially when the Finance Act mandates a lower tax rate for companies with turnover below a certain threshold. The Tribunal followed its own previous decision on an identical issue for a prior assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is the legal employer of the deputed personnel and incurs the cost of emoluments, even if recovered from clients. The provision is a beneficial one to encourage employment and should be construed liberally.

The Tribunal held that the withdrawal of the claim was not voluntary as it was made after the AO's detection. Relying on the Supreme Court decision in MAK Data (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to offer a bona fide explanation for concealment.

The Tribunal held that diamond grading and certification services do not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) as they do not involve making available any technical knowledge or skill to the assessee. Consequently, no obligation to deduct TDS under Section 195 arose.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred on the abandoned Bharuch project is allowable as business expenditure. The mere capitalization of expenses as work-in-progress does not convert them into capital expenditure if the project did not materialize and no capital asset came into existence.

The Tribunal held that the addition under section 69C could not be sustained solely on the non-response of vendors to notices or their alleged non-filing of returns. The assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for the transactions.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's submissions regarding having two PANs and the inadvertent use of one for bank deposits were not properly considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to dispel the suspicion raised by the AO and establish the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal found that the entire transaction of purchasing and selling shares of M/s. Kappac Pharma Limited appeared to be a colourable device to convert unaccounted money into fictitious exempt LTCG to evade taxes. The reasoning was based on several factors: (i) the purchase of shares with undisclosed money, subsequent declaration under IDS, 2016, legalization, refund, and payment by cheque, followed by dematerialization and sale at a significantly higher price, making the transaction appear antedated and colourable. (ii) The transaction failed the test of human probabilities, as no prudent person would invest heavily in a consistently loss-making company, especially when the assessee was a novice. (iii) The assessee failed to dispel the AO's suspicions and withheld the name of the real seller. (iv) The business model of M/s. Kappac Pharma Limited was examined and held by coordinate benches to be a provider of bogus exempt LTCG. (v) The onus to prove the genuineness of the transaction lay with the assessee, which she failed to discharge. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made by the AO. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the assessment order passed by the AO was upheld. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence and held that the addition under Section 69 was not sustainable as the investment was made in FY 2014-15, not FY 2018-19. Stamp duty valuation alone is not sufficient for addition under Section 69.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, considering the outcome of the appeal for the previous assessment year.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied merely because additions were confirmed in quantum proceedings, without specific findings of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal also noted that the issue involved interpretation of statutory provisions and accounting methods, and the assessee had a reasonable basis for its claim.

The Tribunal held that the revised return, filed within the prescribed time, should not be disregarded. The revised return corrected the character of an already disclosed loss, rather than introducing a new claim, and the ratio of the Wipro Ltd. judgment was distinguishable.

The Tribunal held that the redevelopment agreement was executed by the society on behalf of its members, and the society merely held legal title to the land. Therefore, the capital gains tax liability could not be foisted upon the society.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had raised valid factual doubts regarding the date of payment. However, the assessee presented additional evidence to support its claim of payment on March 14, 2016. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification of this new evidence.

The Tribunal held that the buy-back of own shares did not result in the receipt of 'property' under Section 56(2)(x). It also found that interest-free advances were made from surplus own funds and that the written-off loans arose from a regular lending business.

The Tribunal held that diamond grading and certification services do not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) as they do not involve making available any technical knowledge or skill to the assessee. Consequently, no obligation to deduct TDS under Section 195 arose.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions as the assessee provided sufficient evidence of discharge of liabilities and genuineness of loans. The Tribunal also found no prejudice caused to the Revenue by the admission of additional evidence.

The Tribunal held that international connectivity charges, testing, visa-related expenses, and soft-skills/management training were not taxable in India. Receipts from standardized software were not royalty as no copyright was transferred, and lease rental adjustments were deleted. Interest under section 234B was deleted as tax was deductible at source.

The Tribunal held that diamond grading and certification services do not constitute Fees for Technical Services (FTS) as they do not involve making available any technical knowledge or skill to the assessee. Consequently, no obligation to deduct TDS under Section 195 arose.

The Tribunal held that the validity of the assessment proceedings under the faceless assessment scheme was in order. However, due to new evidence submitted by the assessee regarding the Section 68 addition, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Section 14A disallowance was also restored for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was barred by limitation and fundamentally defective. It was also found that the appellant lacked the locus standi to file the appeal as the impugned order was not against him personally.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's reasons for reopening did not explicitly mention the specific entity (M/s Newera Vinimay Pvt Ltd) from which the assessee received funds. Due to this ambiguity and the lack of clarity on whether the taxed transaction was the same as the one forming the basis of reopening, the matter was set aside.

The Tribunal upheld the authorities below, stating that the assessee's failure to disclose income and bank accounts in the original, belatedly filed return, and the subsequent attempt to claim set-offs via a revised computation during assessment, were not permissible under the Act.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence produced by the assessee, which appeared relevant for proper adjudication. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, considering the additional evidence and submissions.

The Tribunal found that the notice under Section 148 dated March 25, 2013, was indeed served on the assessee on March 25, 2013. Consequently, the assessment order passed on March 27, 2015, was beyond the prescribed time limit.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that goodwill is an eligible intangible asset for depreciation, following a previous ruling on the same issue. However, it remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide on the applicability of the 180-day rule for depreciation.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was invalid as it did not specify the limb under which the penalty was initiated. This lack of specificity renders the penalty unsustainable on legal grounds.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied merely because additions were confirmed in quantum proceedings, without specific findings of concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The Tribunal also noted that the issue involved interpretation of statutory provisions and accounting methods, and the assessee had a reasonable basis for its claim.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.5% of the disputed purchases, considering the established manufacturing activity and accepted sales. The Tribunal found the estimation to be reasonable, taking into account potential savings from grey market procurement.

The Tribunal held that international connectivity charges, testing, visa-related expenses, and soft-skills/management training were not taxable in India. Receipts from standardized software were not royalty as no copyright was transferred, and lease rental adjustments were deleted. Interest under section 234B was deleted as tax was deductible at source.

The Tribunal held that international connectivity charges, testing, visa-related expenses, and soft-skills/management training were not taxable in India. Receipts from standardized software were not royalty as no copyright was transferred, and lease rental adjustments were deleted. Interest under section 234B was deleted as tax was deductible at source.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to furnish complete evidence regarding the nature of credits and cash deposits. The Tribunal expressed no opinion on the merits of the additions.

The tribunal held that the jewellery constituted undisclosed income under section 271AAB. However, the penalty should be levied at 10% under clause (a) instead of 30% under the residuary clause (c) due to the assessee's admission and subsequent compliance.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently proved the genuineness of purchases with invoices, delivery challans, and bank payments. The non-payment of VAT by suppliers alone was insufficient to deem purchases bogus.

The Tribunal held that the donation was made when the institution had valid approval, and subsequent withdrawal of approval does not affect the deduction. The AO's disallowance was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the penalties were paid in the normal course of business and not for any infraction of law or offense. Therefore, they were allowable as business expenditure, and the penalty under Section 270A was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to establish a specific nexus between the assessee and any alleged operator or accommodation-entry provider for the penny-stock transactions. Regarding interest expenditure, the Tribunal followed a previous decision in the assessee's own case and upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion based on commercial expediency.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee failed to demonstrate the company's intrinsic financial strength or rebut the findings regarding the scrip's abnormal behavior. The claim for exempt long-term capital gain was not accepted.

The Tribunal held that the penalties were paid in the normal course of business and not for any infraction of law or offense. Therefore, they were allowable as business expenditure, and the penalty under Section 270A was unsustainable.

The Tribunal decided various grounds of appeal, allowing some, dismissing others, and partly allowing some for statistical purposes. Specific issues like disallowance of license fee, depreciation, and domestic roaming charges were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that adjudicating the penalty appeal while the underlying quantum proceedings are pending is premature. Therefore, the penalty matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after the quantum appeal is decided.

The Tribunal held that international connectivity charges, testing, visa-related expenses, and soft-skills/management training were not taxable in India. Receipts from standardized software were not royalty as no copyright was transferred, and lease rental adjustments were deleted. Interest under section 234B was deleted as tax was deductible at source.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was based on cogent materials and duly endorsed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal also noted that the right of hearing does not necessarily include the right to cross-examine, and the burden of proof was on the assessee to explain the source of funds, which was not discharged.