ITAT Mumbai Judgments — August 2026

The Tribunal decided to restore the transfer pricing issue (Ground Nos. 1(b) to 1(e)) to the Assessing Officer/TPO. The Tribunal followed the Delhi High Court's decision in PCIT v. FIS Global Business Solutions India (P.) Ltd., holding that even if the disputed year is not covered by an APA, the APA methodology can be adopted if the FAR remains the same. The Assessing Officer/TPO is directed to compare the FAR profile of the current year with the APA years. The assessee must provide necessary documents. If the FAR and transaction terms are found to be the same, the APA methodology shall be adopted. The impact of the ₹50,76,400 prior-period adjustment on the operating results must also be verified and excluded if applicable. The issue of concessional tax regime under section 115BAA (Ground No. 1(k)) is also restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of the option filing and grant of benefit if satisfied. The levy of interest under section 234C (Ground No. 1(l)) is consequential and will be recomputed. Ground No. 1(a) concerning procedural/jurisdictional matters was not adjudicated as no arguments were advanced by the assessee. The grounds concerning individual comparables will be considered only if they survive after the aforesaid exercise. The appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 11, following earlier consistent rulings on identical facts. Specific issues regarding depreciation and accumulation under Section 11(2) were also decided in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to furnish fresh evidence. This decision was made considering the relevance of the new evidence and the assessee's failure to produce it earlier.

The Tribunal held that the NRI Desk Expenses, including internal audit, financial control, IT, HR, operations, rent, depreciation, and advertising, fall under the specific categories enumerated in Explanation (iv) to Section 44C. Therefore, these expenses are subject to the limitations prescribed under Section 44C and not allowable as direct expenditure under Section 37(1).

The Tribunal held that CAM and allied charges paid by the assessee fall within the definition of 'rent' under Section 194I, as they are linked to the use and occupation of the premises. Separate invoices do not alter the substance of the transaction.

The tribunal held that the approval for issuing the section 148 notice was obtained from an incompetent authority, making it a jurisdictional defect. Consequently, the notice and the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of books and the addition for suppressed gross profit were unjustified as the stock valuation method was consistently followed and the AO's method was not demonstrably correct. The addition for unsecured loans was also deleted as the assessee discharged the primary burden under Section 68.

The Tribunal held that since the approvals under Section 12AB and 80G were subsequently granted, the appeals filed against the earlier rejection orders had become infructuous.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in not condoning the delay without verifying the assessee's claim about the date of receiving the assessment order. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment due to lack of evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had since granted the approval for registration. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee against the earlier rejection order had become infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A was not warranted as the assessee earned no exempt income. For the interest disallowance, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after the assessee provides further evidence.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to provide an FIR/complaint and relevant ledger accounts. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for de-novo adjudication, allowing the assessee to furnish necessary documents.

The Tribunal held that the omission to report exempt income in Schedule EI was a mere reporting error and did not alter the intrinsic character of the income. The exemption under Sections 10(34) and 10(35) cannot be denied due to such an inadvertent error.

The Tribunal held that the non-production of a decades-old registration certificate is a procedural deficiency and not a valid ground for rejection without verifying departmental records. The CIT(E) should have verified the historical records before rejecting the application.

The Tribunal held that the non-production of a decades-old registration certificate is a procedural deficiency and not a valid ground for rejection without verifying departmental records. The CIT(E) should have verified the historical records before rejecting the application.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had shown a reasonable cause for non-compliance before the lower authorities. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the matter was restored back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that since the approvals under Section 12AB and 80G were subsequently granted, the appeals filed against the earlier rejection orders had become infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including bank statements, cash books, and sales bills, to substantiate the cash deposit as arising from regular business sales. The AO's assumptions about sales patterns were deemed unsubstantiated.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided evidence establishing a one-to-one correlation between interest-free funds received from its holding company and payments made to Conwood DB JV. Therefore, the disallowance of interest expenses was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that equity and preference shares are distinct and cannot be valued alike. It further stated that Section 48 requires the actual consideration received, and Section 50CA, which deems fair market value, was not applicable for the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the deduction. It found that the donation was not genuine, as the political party was involved in providing bogus donation entries to enable donors to claim deductions.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided supporting documents and that coordinate benches of the ITAT had deleted similar additions for the same scrip and assessment year. Following these precedents, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the exemption and delete the additions.

The Tribunal held that while the Assessing Officer's power to entertain claims outside a revised return is limited (as per Goetze (India) Ltd.), appellate authorities can entertain legitimate claims not made through a revised return. The matter was restored to the AO for verification of the assessee's claim.

The Tribunal held that the absence of a formal written trust deed or Memorandum of Association cannot be the sole ground for rejecting renewal of registration under Section 12AB if the institution is otherwise established and recognized. The CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting the applications on this ground alone.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred by insisting on a formal trust deed, overlooking Rule 17A(2)(b) which allows for documents evidencing creation for trusts not established by an instrument. The registration under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act and other supporting documents should have been considered.

The Tribunal held that the absence of a formal trust deed or Memorandum of Association cannot be the sole ground for rejecting the renewal of registration under section 12AB, especially when the institution is registered under the Public Trusts Act and has been recognized for decades. The consequential rejection of 80G approval was also set aside.

The Tribunal held that the absence of a formal trust deed alone cannot be a ground for rejecting renewal if the institution can establish its creation, charitable objects, and genuine activities through other statutory records and long-standing recognition. The CIT(E)'s interpretation of Rule 17A(2)(b) was considered too restrictive.

The Tribunal held that the absence of a formal trust deed alone cannot be a ground for rejecting renewal if the institution can establish its creation, charitable objects, and genuine activities through other statutory records and long-standing recognition. The CIT(E)'s interpretation of Rule 17A(2)(b) was considered too restrictive.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not properly examine the assessee's application for 12AB renewal and did not provide sufficient opportunity for the assessee to furnish required details. Consequently, the 80G rejection, being consequential, also lacked independent examination.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not properly examine the assessee's application for 12AB renewal and did not provide sufficient opportunity for the assessee to furnish required details. Consequently, the 80G rejection, being consequential, also lacked independent examination.

The Tribunal held that the absence of a formal trust deed, by itself, cannot be a ground for refusing renewal if the institution's existence, charitable objects, and genuineness of activities are otherwise established. The CIT(E) also proceeded on an incorrect factual premise regarding the assessee being governed by Canon Law.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) adopted an unduly restrictive interpretation of Section 12AB and Rule 17A. It ruled that statutory records and other contemporaneous material sufficiently establish the creation, charitable objects, and genuineness of activities, allowing for renewal even without a formal written instrument.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) adopted an unduly restrictive interpretation of Section 12AB and Rule 17A. It ruled that statutory records and other contemporaneous material sufficiently establish the creation, charitable objects, and genuineness of activities, allowing for renewal even without a formal written instrument.

The Tribunal held that the absence of a formal written trust deed or Memorandum of Association cannot be the sole ground for rejecting renewal of registration under Section 12AB if the institution is otherwise established and recognized. The CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting the applications on this ground alone.

The Tribunal held that the absence of a formal trust deed, by itself, cannot be a ground for refusing renewal if the institution's existence, charitable objects, and genuineness of activities are otherwise established. The CIT(E) also proceeded on an incorrect factual premise regarding the assessee being governed by Canon Law.

The Tribunal held that the absence of a formal written trust deed cannot be the sole ground for rejecting registration under section 12AB if the institution has otherwise provided sufficient documentary evidence of its creation and charitable activities. The rejection of 80G approval was consequential.

The Tribunal held that the absence of a formal written trust deed cannot be the sole ground for rejecting registration under section 12AB if the institution has otherwise provided sufficient documentary evidence of its creation and charitable activities. The rejection of 80G approval was consequential.

The Tribunal held that the absence of a formal trust deed or Memorandum of Association cannot be a ground for rejecting renewal of registration under Section 12AB if the institution is established otherwise than under an instrument. Cogent documentary evidence of its creation and existence is sufficient.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred by insisting on a formal trust deed, overlooking Rule 17A(2)(b) which allows for documents evidencing creation for trusts not established by an instrument. The registration under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act and other supporting documents were deemed sufficient.

The Tribunal held that the absence of a formal written trust deed cannot be the sole ground for rejecting registration under section 12AB, especially when the institution is established otherwise than under an instrument and has a long history of recognition. The rejection of the 80G approval was also set aside as consequential.

The Tribunal held that the absence of a formal trust deed or Memorandum of Association cannot be a ground for rejecting renewal of registration under Section 12AB if the institution is established otherwise than under an instrument. Cogent documentary evidence of its creation and existence is sufficient.

The Tribunal held that the absence of a formal trust deed or Memorandum of Association cannot be the sole ground for rejecting the renewal of registration under section 12AB, especially when the institution is registered under the Public Trusts Act and has been recognized for decades. The consequential rejection of 80G approval was also set aside.

The Tribunal held that the absence of a formal written trust deed cannot be the sole ground for rejecting registration under section 12AB, especially when the institution is established otherwise than under an instrument and has a long history of recognition. The rejection of the 80G approval was also set aside as consequential.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to a duplicate filing. The Revenue's representative did not oppose this request.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting and examining the additional evidence, which was crucial for verifying the additions. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record proper satisfaction regarding the correctness of the assessee's suo moto disallowance before invoking Rule 8D. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO under Section 14A was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the AO's disallowance under Section 14A was justified as earning of exempt income is not a prerequisite for such disallowance, as per CBDT Circular No. 5 of 2014. The second disallowance related to stamp duty is not fully detailed in the provided text.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee failed to discharge its onus to prove the genuineness of transactions despite admissions and corroborating evidence. The estimation of commission income was deemed reasonable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee failed to discharge its onus to prove the genuineness of transactions despite admissions and corroborating evidence. The estimation of commission income was deemed reasonable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee failed to discharge its onus to prove the genuineness of transactions despite admissions and corroborating evidence. The estimation of commission income was deemed reasonable.