ITAT Mumbai Judgments — August 2026

The Tribunal held that the TPO's determination of ALP at NIL for communication, computer, and professional charges was unsustainable as the assessee had recharged these costs with a markup. The issue of unbilled revenue for Section 10A deduction was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the sale consideration approved by the Charity Commissioner, a statutory authority, should be considered, not the stamp duty value under Section 50C. The Tribunal also directed the allowance of certain expenses that were not properly disallowed by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the addition could not be sustained as the Assessing Officer relied on general investigation reports without specific corroborative material connecting the assessee to manipulation or accommodation entries. The deletion of additions by the Commissioner was found to be correct.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee provided a prima facie explanation, it required factual verification. The commercial improbability of retaining cash for years was noted, but not conclusive proof of undisclosed income.

The Tribunal held that mere absence of inquiry by the AO does not automatically make the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue, especially when the allowability of ESOP expenditure is a settled issue. The PCIT should have examined the assessee's explanation and determined actual prejudice.

The Tribunal noted that the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor were established. While the lender's bank statement showed debits to the assessee, the assessee's bank statement showing corresponding credits was not produced. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to examine the assessee's bank statement.

The Tribunal held that due to the absence of assessment records and seized material, it was not appropriate to adjudicate the additional grounds. Following a precedent in a connected matter, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that due to the absence of assessment records and seized material, it was not appropriate to adjudicate the additional grounds. Following a precedent in a connected matter, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the revenue failed to establish that the assessee's case fell within the specific clauses of Section 270A(9) for misreporting. The penalty was levied without identifying or establishing the existence of any of the enumerated circumstances.

The Tribunal held that the TPO's determination of ALP at NIL for communication, computer, and professional charges was unsustainable as the assessee had recharged these costs with a markup. The issue of unbilled revenue for Section 10A deduction was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal considered the request and noted that the appeal was indeed a duplicate. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow pro-rata deduction under Section 80IB(10), finding it in consonance with High Court and Supreme Court judgments. However, it directed the AO to verify project completion based on evidence, not solely on the completion certificate, especially when applied for within the prescribed period.

The Tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A can be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant year. The disallowance made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow pro-rata deduction under Section 80IB(10), finding it in consonance with High Court and Supreme Court judgments. However, it directed the AO to verify project completion based on evidence, not solely on the completion certificate, especially when applied for within the prescribed period.

The Tribunal held that due to the absence of assessment records and seized material, it was not appropriate to adjudicate the additional grounds. Following a precedent in a connected matter, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not afforded an adequate opportunity to explain the delay in filing the application. Following a coordinate bench decision, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that due to the absence of assessment records and seized material, it was not appropriate to adjudicate the additional grounds. Following a precedent in a connected matter, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that subletting charges paid to MIDC are an integral cost for earning rental income and should be deducted. The CIT(A)'s reasoning that standard deduction under Section 24(a) precludes this deduction was found to be unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that due to the absence of assessment records and seized material, it was not appropriate to adjudicate the additional grounds. Following a precedent in a connected matter, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that due to the absence of assessment records and seized material, it was not appropriate to adjudicate the additional grounds. Following a precedent in a connected matter, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that due to the absence of assessment records and seized material, it was not appropriate to adjudicate the additional grounds. Following a precedent in a connected matter, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that due to the absence of assessment records and seized material, it was not appropriate to adjudicate the additional grounds. Following a precedent in a connected matter, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that due to the absence of assessment records and seized material, it was not appropriate to adjudicate the additional grounds. Following a precedent in a connected matter, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that due to the absence of assessment records and seized material, it was not appropriate to adjudicate the additional grounds. Following a precedent in a connected matter, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found a divergence between the AO's observations of deficiencies in evidence and the CIT(A)'s findings. To ensure natural justice and proper verification, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that due to the absence of assessment records and seized material, it was not appropriate to adjudicate the additional grounds. Following a precedent in a connected matter, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening was granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, which is not the 'specified authority' as required under Section 151(ii) for reopening beyond three years. Therefore, the notice and subsequent reassessment are bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 on or after 01.04.2021 is void-ab-initio and barred by limitation, following Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court judgments. Consequently, the notice and the consequential assessment order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that due to the absence of assessment records and seized material, it was not appropriate to adjudicate the additional grounds. Following a precedent in a connected matter, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that due to the absence of assessment records and seized material, it was not appropriate to adjudicate the additional grounds. Following a precedent in a connected matter, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that due to the absence of assessment records and seized material, it was not appropriate to adjudicate the additional grounds. Following a precedent in a connected matter, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO did not stem from the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. Therefore, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., the additions were unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that payments made for the purchase of agricultural produce to agents appointed by the Krushi Utpana Bazar Samitee are covered under Rule 6DD(e) and (k) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that making a claim which is unsustainable in law does not automatically attract penalty under Section 270A, especially when the issue is debatable and all facts were disclosed. The ingredients for 'misreporting' under Section 270A(9) were not met.

The Tribunal held that the issue of treating negative net worth for capital gains computation was debatable, with divergent judicial views and a substantial question of law admitted by the High Court. Therefore, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not warranted.

The Tribunal held that due to the absence of assessment records and seized material, it was not appropriate to adjudicate the additional grounds. Following a precedent in a connected matter, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that due to the absence of assessment records and seized material, it was not appropriate to adjudicate the additional grounds. Following a precedent in a connected matter, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that due to the absence of assessment records and seized material, it was not appropriate to adjudicate the additional grounds. Following a precedent in a connected matter, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) did not specify which documents were missing from the assessee's application. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Exemptions) to provide a clear list of required documents.

The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings but saw no ground to uphold the penalty when the quantum appeal for the same year was decided in favor of the assessee. The ITAT's previous order directing exemption under Section 11 & 12 was considered decisive.

The Tribunal held that due to the absence of assessment records and seized material, it was not appropriate to adjudicate the additional grounds. Following a precedent in a connected matter, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal held that since the approval for reopening was obtained from the Principal Commissioner instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner (as required for reopening beyond three years), the notice under Section 148 was bad in law. Consequently, the reassessment framed was void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were barred by limitation as per the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal. The notices were issued after the stipulated date for the relevant assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 and the order passed under Section 148A(d) were bad in law due to the incorrect authority granting approval for reopening beyond three years. Additionally, the notice was found to be issued beyond the surviving period as per Supreme Court decisions.

The Tribunal held that the Indian subsidiary was not a dependent agent PE as it operated on a principal-to-principal basis and did not habitually conclude contracts on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, no further profit attribution was warranted.

The Tribunal held that the Indian subsidiary was not a dependent agent PE as it operated on a principal-to-principal basis and did not habitually conclude contracts on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, no further profit attribution was warranted.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO did not stem from the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment. Therefore, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd., the additions were unsustainable.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the approval for reopening the assessment was invalid as it was not obtained from the competent authority as prescribed under Section 151(ii) of the Act.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its prima facie onus by producing documentary evidence of transactions through recognized exchanges and banking channels. The Revenue failed to provide specific material connecting the assessee to any manipulation.

The Tribunal held that low-pressure steam, being a useful output of the cogeneration process, cannot be assigned a nil cost. The entire common cost of the plant cannot be charged solely against electricity revenue.