ITAT Mumbai Judgments — August 2026

The Tribunal held that since the initial notice for reassessment was issued by an officer lacking jurisdiction over a non-resident assessee, the entire reassessment proceedings were invalid. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in allowing the exemption under Article 8 of the India-USA Tax Treaty. The Tribunal found no factual differences from earlier cases where the same issue was decided in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the authorities below erred in invoking the proviso to Section 2(15) solely based on rental income and license fees. It clarified that such receipts from properties held under trust are not necessarily business income, especially when incidental to charitable objects.

The Tribunal held that mere handling or transportation of cash does not automatically mean the assessee is the owner. Additions made purely on uncorroborated WhatsApp chats and unsupported third-party statements without independent material were deleted. Additions related to cash transportation/Angadia activity were restricted to commission income.

The Tribunal held that since the Vivad Se Vishwas settlement was not finalized, the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reopening was valid. However, it found that the assessee had discharged the initial burden under Section 68 by providing evidence of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions. The Tribunal also noted a duplication in taxing loans and their repayments and an addition without corresponding credit in the assessee's books.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing necessary documents like ITRs, bank statements, and confirmations. The tribunal noted that the amendment to Section 68 regarding 'source of source' was not applicable for the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's conduct throughout the proceedings demonstrated a pattern of non-compliance and defaults. The reasons provided for the delay were considered vague and general, lacking sufficient cause.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's conduct throughout the proceedings demonstrated a pattern of non-compliance and defaults. The reasons provided for the delay were considered vague and general, lacking sufficient cause.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had demonstrated its rightful claim to the TDS credit as reflected in Form 26AS, with corresponding income offered to tax. No objections were raised by the revenue. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of professional fees was not tenable as it turned out to be a loan transaction. Regarding the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia), the Tribunal found no reasoned observation for the disallowance and noted that mere rejection of a claim does not automatically warrant penalty.

The Tribunal held that the approved Resolution Plan, having attained finality and been judicially approved after considering the Income Tax Department's objections, was binding. Consequently, the pending tax appeals concerning periods prior to the plan's approval were no longer maintainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the cross-objection. It deleted the addition of Rs. 48,487 on account of differences in advances, the disallowance of Rs. 2,10,025 under Section 43B, and the disallowance of Rs. 10,000 as a penalty, holding them to be compensatory.

The Tribunal held that the services provided by the assessee did not make available any technical knowledge or experience to the Indian entity, nor did they involve the development and transfer of a technical plan or design. Therefore, the consideration was not taxable in India.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to support the purchase and sale of shares, and the Revenue failed to provide any material to controvert these documents or establish the assessee's involvement in any dubious transaction. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not sustained.

The Tribunal held that the notice for reassessment issued under Section 148 on 27.07.2022 was barred by limitation, making the reassessment proceedings and order bad in law. This decision was based on Supreme Court and High Court judgments concerning the application of TOLA and reassessment timelines.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction by passing a conditional order and failing to decide the issue of bona fide error. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the assessee was not maintainable as it was filed in contravention of the NCLT's moratorium order. The Tribunal relied on a Bombay High Court decision stating that assessment proceedings are barred during CIRP.

The Tribunal held that the approved Resolution Plan, having attained finality and been judicially approved after considering the Income Tax Department's objections, was binding. Consequently, the pending tax appeals concerning periods prior to the plan's approval were no longer maintainable.

The Tribunal found that explaining cash deposits from sales made up to 9 years prior was far-fetched and required thorough examination. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate the availability of such cash. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for further inquiry.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the reassessment proceedings were invalid. The Assessing Officer failed to comply with the proviso to Section 147 by not demonstrating the assessee's failure to disclose material facts, and there was no fresh tangible material to justify the reopening.

The Tribunal held that the transactions were conducted through the stock exchange via a SEBI-registered broker, with payments routed through banking channels and STT levied. Relying on jurisdictional High Court precedents, the Tribunal found no perversity in the assessee's documentation and deleted the addition.

The Tribunal held that the approved Resolution Plan, having attained finality and been judicially approved after considering the Income Tax Department's objections, was binding. Consequently, the pending tax appeals concerning periods prior to the plan's approval were no longer maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the approved Resolution Plan, having attained finality and been judicially approved after considering the Income Tax Department's objections, was binding. Consequently, the pending tax appeals concerning periods prior to the plan's approval were no longer maintainable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12% of the alleged bogus purchases. It found that the assessee had diligently participated in the assessment and appellate proceedings, unlike in the cases relied upon by the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the approved Resolution Plan, having attained finality and been judicially approved after considering the Income Tax Department's objections, was binding. Consequently, the pending tax appeals concerning periods prior to the plan's approval were no longer maintainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that interest on a loan taken for acquiring a capital asset, even if paid after the acquisition date, should be allowed as part of the cost of acquisition for computing capital gains, following the ratio of the Delhi High Court.

The Tribunal held that the approved Resolution Plan, having attained finality and been judicially approved after considering the Income Tax Department's objections, was binding. Consequently, the pending tax appeals concerning periods prior to the plan's approval were no longer maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the approved Resolution Plan, having attained finality and been judicially approved after considering the Income Tax Department's objections, was binding. Consequently, the pending tax appeals concerning periods prior to the plan's approval were no longer maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the approved Resolution Plan, having attained finality and been judicially approved after considering the Income Tax Department's objections, was binding. Consequently, the pending tax appeals concerning periods prior to the plan's approval were no longer maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the approved Resolution Plan, having attained finality and been judicially approved after considering the Income Tax Department's objections, was binding. Consequently, the pending tax appeals concerning periods prior to the plan's approval were no longer maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the approved Resolution Plan, having attained finality and been judicially approved after considering the Income Tax Department's objections, was binding. Consequently, the pending tax appeals concerning periods prior to the plan's approval were no longer maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the approved Resolution Plan, having attained finality and been judicially approved after considering the Income Tax Department's objections, was binding. Consequently, the pending tax appeals concerning periods prior to the plan's approval were no longer maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus by furnishing complete evidence of the share transactions. The lower authorities failed to make independent investigations or present adverse material connecting the assessee or their broker to price manipulation. Therefore, the addition of long-term capital loss and commission expenses was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was not justified in cancelling the registration under section 12AB and rejecting the application for approval under section 80G. The grounds relied upon by the CIT(E) did not establish that the assessee's activities ceased to be genuine or were not carried out in accordance with its charitable objects.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was not justified in cancelling the registration under section 12AB and rejecting the application for approval under section 80G. The grounds relied upon by the CIT(E) did not establish that the assessee's activities ceased to be genuine or were not carried out in accordance with its charitable objects.

The Tribunal held that the mere non-filing of the old 12A registration cannot be the sole reason for rejecting the application for registration under Section 12AB. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the reopening was valid. However, it found that the assessee had discharged the initial burden under Section 68 by providing evidence of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan transactions. The Tribunal also noted a duplication in taxing loans and their repayments and an addition without corresponding credit in the assessee's books.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that interest on a loan taken for acquiring a capital asset, even if paid after the acquisition date, should be allowed as part of the cost of acquisition for computing capital gains, following the ratio of the Delhi High Court.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16, dated 05.04.2022, was barred by limitation. This decision was based on Supreme Court and High Court rulings concerning the applicability of TOLA and the time limits for reassessment.

The Tribunal held that the addition was made solely on the basis of an employee's statement and an Excel file without corroborative evidence. The assessee had provided verifiable documentary evidence, and the AO did not conduct further inquiries with VAT/GST departments.

The Tribunal held that the difference between the DVO's valuation and the actual consideration paid was less than 10%, falling within the safe harbor limit. Therefore, no addition was warranted under section 56(2)(x). The issue regarding society dues was rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the adjustment made under section 143(1) was not sustainable as it resulted in taxing the same income twice. The assessee had already disclosed and offered the amount to tax under capital gains, and the adjustment by CPC was an erroneous inclusion.

The Tribunal decided to restore the penalty issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This is to be done alongside the appeal against the quantum addition, ensuring a conjoint adjudication.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw its appeal as the grievance raised in the appeal no longer survived due to the subsequent renewal of registration. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.