ITAT Mumbai Judgments — August 2026

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated. However, the grounds challenging the additions on merits were not properly adjudicated by the lower appellate authority.

The Tribunal found a lack of clear findings and appreciation of facts by the Assessing Officer regarding the genuineness of the transactions and the source of funds. Consequently, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the SEBI report did not find any manipulation in the trading of the shares in question, and the trading on the stock exchange was genuine. Following coordinate benches' decisions in similar cases, the Tribunal deleted the additions made by the AO.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) on grounds of natural justice and substantial justice. It held that interest received from co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), but interest from SBI is not.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not consider the assessee's affidavit for condonation of delay. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) to consider the affidavit and pass a fresh order.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated as there was a live nexus between the information received and the belief of escaped income. The assessee failed to discharge the onus under Section 68 by not satisfactorily establishing the creditworthiness of the lender and the genuineness of the transaction.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal before the CIT(A) was disposed of ex-parte, and the assessee was deprived of a proper opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated as there was a live nexus between the information received and the belief of escaped income. The assessee failed to discharge the onus under Section 68 by not satisfactorily establishing the creditworthiness of the lender and the genuineness of the transaction.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated as there was a live nexus between the information received and the belief of escaped income. The assessee failed to discharge the onus under Section 68 by not satisfactorily establishing the creditworthiness of the lender and the genuineness of the transaction.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was to allow the admission and examination of additional evidence regarding partners' withdrawals and their sources.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was given an opportunity to furnish documentary evidence to support its claim of reasonable cause for non-compliance.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated as there was a live nexus between the information received and the belief of escaped income. The assessee failed to discharge the onus under Section 68 by not satisfactorily establishing the creditworthiness of the lender and the genuineness of the transaction.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking revisional jurisdiction under Section 263. The AO had examined the issue and adopted a plausible view, and the assessment order could not be revised merely because the PCIT had a different opinion. Furthermore, the assessee was not properly confronted with the invocation of Explanation 2 to Section 263.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not correctly appreciated the factual position and relevant documents in both grounds. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering all evidence and legal arguments.

The Tribunal held that the error in mentioning section 270 instead of 270A was a curable procedural defect. The order was otherwise clearly identifiable, and the assessee's intent to challenge the penalty under section 270A was evident. The CIT(A) should have allowed rectification instead of dismissing the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the AO had not considered withdrawals made by the assessee and that the entire credit entries could not be treated as taxable. The Tribunal directed the AO to recompute the income by taxing 8% of the alleged bogus transactions, following the 'Real Income Theory'.

The Tribunal held that while the time limit for filing Form 10AB is statutory, Section 12A(1)(ac) now contains a proviso empowering the Commissioner to condone delays if reasonable cause is shown. The CIT(E) had not considered the explanation in the correct statutory framework.

The Tribunal held that the trust's activities did not directly benefit the settlors or members, and the trust was indeed irrevocable as per its deed. The interest income on auction proceeds was also not taxable in the hands of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the trust's activities did not directly benefit the settlors or members, and the trust was indeed irrevocable as per its deed. The interest income on auction proceeds was also not taxable in the hands of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the date of fixing the consideration is relevant for Section 43CA, and the assessee's claim regarding allotment dates and stamp duty values on those dates requires factual verification. Since these documents were not before the lower authorities, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the trust's activities did not directly benefit the settlors or members, and the trust was indeed irrevocable as per its deed. The interest income on auction proceeds was also not taxable in the hands of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under section 263 was unsustainable as the Assessing Officer had conducted adequate inquiries and adopted a plausible view. The cash deposits were duly recorded as business sales in the audited books of account and offered to tax.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 was unsustainable as it was based on a borrowed satisfaction from an audit objection, not an independent application of mind. The proceedings were initiated mechanically without proper examination of the records.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not consider the assessee's affidavit for condonation of delay. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) to consider the affidavit and pass a fresh order.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 was unsustainable as it was based on a borrowed satisfaction from an audit objection, not an independent application of mind. The proceedings were initiated mechanically without proper examination of the records.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to demonstrate any reasonable cause for accepting cash payment, and the provisions of Section 269SS are mandatory. Ignorance of law or convenience cannot constitute a reasonable cause.

The Tribunal held that the trust's activities did not directly benefit the settlors or members, and the trust was indeed irrevocable as per its deed. The interest income on auction proceeds was also not taxable in the hands of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the beneficial tax rate of 25% as per the Finance Act, as its turnover was less than Rs. 250 crores. Merely referring to a wrong provision does not empower the department to levy a higher tax rate.

The Tribunal held that cooperative banks are primarily cooperative societies and interest earned from them is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). This decision is based on a series of consistent rulings by the Tribunal and various High Courts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to present complete evidence regarding the property's condition and valuation disputes before the CIT(A). Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the present appeal was a duplicate of a previously filed and disposed of appeal against the same rejection order. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as redundant.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's right to deduction under Section 43B should not be denied on technical grounds. The matter was restored to the AO to examine and verify the documents regarding the disallowance and subsequent payment.

The ITAT held that jurisdictional grounds challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings must be specifically adjudicated before any decision on merits. The CIT(A) erred in treating these grounds as technical and restoring the matter without a reasoned decision on the foundational legal objections.

The Tribunal held that the penalty appeal should also be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh decision. The CIT(A) is to decide the penalty appeal after considering the outcome of the quantum appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal before the CIT(A) was disposed of ex-parte, and the assessee was deprived of a proper opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that following a search initiated after 01.04.2021, for the three preceding assessment years, the Assessing Officer must invoke reassessment proceedings under section 147/148. Framing the assessment directly under section 143(3) without following this procedure renders the assessment void ab initio.

The Tribunal acknowledged the Bombay High Court's ruling that DTAA rates prevail if lower than Section 115-O rates. However, due to the pending SLP in the Supreme Court, the Tribunal decided to set aside the order and restore the issue for fresh adjudication pending the Supreme Court's decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex parte and lacked proper adjudication, violating principles of natural justice and statutory requirements.

The Tribunal held that the trust's activities did not directly benefit the settlors or members, and the trust was indeed irrevocable as per its deed. The interest income on auction proceeds was also not taxable in the hands of the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of the share transactions. The Tribunal noted that similar additions concerning the same scrip had been deleted in previous cases by coordinate benches.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the genuineness of the share transactions. The Tribunal noted that similar additions concerning the same scrip had been deleted in previous cases by coordinate benches.

The Tribunal held that the trust's activities did not directly benefit the settlors or members, and the trust was indeed irrevocable as per its deed. The interest income on auction proceeds was also not taxable in the hands of the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) deleted additions without independent verification of disclosures made before the Interim Board for Settlement. For the assessee's appeals, no material was presented to challenge the CIT(A)'s confirmation of additions.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order, restoring the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for reconsideration of the delay condonation application. The ITAT emphasized that the affidavit and supporting material filed before it were not considered by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, restricting the addition on bogus purchases to 12.5% and deleting additions related to unsecured loans, unexplained investments, rent disallowance, late fees, and closing creditors. Penalty proceedings were dismissed as premature.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions under Section 69 without independent verification. The reliance on disclosures before the Interim Board for Settlement and an order in another partner's case was insufficient. The Tribunal noted that there was no record to show the CIT(A) verified if the specific amounts of alleged interest in the seized documents were actually considered and assessed in the hands of the respective assessees, or if the disclosures fully covered the impugned additions. The issue of whether income reflected in seized material had already suffered tax requires factual verification, which ought to have been done before granting relief. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders on these issues and restored the matters to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO is directed to verify the scope of disclosures, examine if impugned amounts were taxed, and decide afresh after affording an opportunity to the assessees. For the assessee's appeals concerning Section 69A, the Tribunal found no material to demonstrate factual incorrectness of the authorities' findings or that seized documents did not relate to the relevant assessment years. Since no contrary evidence or arguments were presented by the assessees, the additions sustained by the CIT(A) were upheld. The ground regarding violation of principles of natural justice was dismissed due to lack of submissions or material.

The Tribunal held that for Assessment Year 2014-15, the assessee was not required to establish the source of the source of unsecured loans. The addition was deleted as the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing creditor details and banking channel evidence, and no further material showed the transactions were sham.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) on grounds of natural justice and substantial justice. It held that interest received from co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), but interest from SBI is not.

The Tribunal held that CSR expenditure, while not deductible as business expenditure under Section 37, can be eligible for deduction under Section 80G if the donee institutions are approved and other conditions are met. The disallowance by lower authorities was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions under Section 69 without independent verification. The reliance on disclosures before the Interim Board for Settlement and an order in another partner's case was insufficient. The Tribunal noted that there was no record to show the CIT(A) verified if the specific amounts of alleged interest in the seized documents were actually considered and assessed in the hands of the respective assessees, or if the disclosures fully covered the impugned additions. The issue of whether income reflected in seized material had already suffered tax requires factual verification, which ought to have been done before granting relief. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders on these issues and restored the matters to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO is directed to verify the scope of disclosures, examine if impugned amounts were taxed, and decide afresh after affording an opportunity to the assessees. For the assessee's appeals concerning Section 69A, the Tribunal found no material to demonstrate factual incorrectness of the authorities' findings or that seized documents did not relate to the relevant assessment years. Since no contrary evidence or arguments were presented by the assessees, the additions sustained by the CIT(A) were upheld. The ground regarding violation of principles of natural justice was dismissed due to lack of submissions or material.