ITAT Mumbai Judgments — August 2026

The Tribunal held that the payment for software license was not royalty as it only granted a right to use the software, not the copyright. For the video-conferencing equipment, the Tribunal held that only the amount attributable to installation and training could be considered for TDS, not the entire payment.

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 was not sustainable. It noted that the assessee had provided documentary evidence and requested further verification from the Assessing Officer, which was not conducted.

The Tribunal held that the mere appearance of the assessee's name in the investigation report, without corroborative material, cannot justify the addition. The assessee's own Demat and bank statements, showing no such transactions, were not controverted by the revenue.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions. It held that income offered under the IDS is immune from further taxation and that additions under Section 153A require incriminating material found during the assessee's search, not from third parties.

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 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 upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions. It held that income offered under the IDS is immune from further taxation and that additions under Section 153A require incriminating material found during the assessee's search, not from third parties.

The Tribunal deleted the addition of ₹14,38,00,000 under section 68, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the unsecured loans. Consequently, the disallowance of interest related to these loans was also deleted. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the business loss and allow its set-off against the capital gain from the property sale.

The Tribunal held that the payment was a repayment of the company's debt to the assessee, not a loan or advance by the company to the shareholder. The character of the payment as a loan or advance is central to section 2(22)(e).

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were unsustainable as the information relied upon by the Assessing Officer originated from the assessee's own IDS declaration. The CIT(A) correctly deleted the addition as the same income cannot be taxed twice.

The Tribunal deleted the addition of ₹14,38,00,000 under section 68, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the unsecured loans. Consequently, the disallowance of interest related to these loans was also deleted. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the business loss and allow its set-off against the capital gain from the property sale.

The Tribunal held that the estimation of net profit at 4.00% of turnover was reasonable, considering the assessee's past results and the lack of comparable data. The net profit was directed to be restricted to Rs. 22,95,066.

The Tribunal decided both issues in favour of the assessee. Regarding the Rs. 10,00,000/- addition under Section 69, the Tribunal found that the Investment Ledger (APB page 37) and the Balance Sheet as at 31.03.2023 (APB page 33) reflected investments aggregating to Rs. 32,25,910.57, contradicting the revenue's assertion of non-disclosure. Furthermore, documentary evidence at APB page 46 indicated that the fixed deposit traced back to an investment made on 12.03.2021, supporting the assessee's claim that it was a renewal of an existing investment, not a fresh unexplained one. The Tribunal noted that Section 69 requires the investment to be unrecorded or the explanation to be unsatisfactory, neither of which applied here as the investment was recorded and its origin established. Thus, the addition was deleted, and consequently, the application of Section 115BBE was rendered infructuous. Concerning the Rs. 30,000/- addition, the Tribunal found that the particulars and income-tax returns of the three donors, showing substantial Gross Total Incomes, sufficiently established their identity and financial capacity for donations of Rs. 10,000/- each. The revenue had not provided any material to rebut this evidence. Therefore, the addition was also deleted. The ratio is that for Section 69, recorded investments with traceable origins and financially capable donors for small amounts cannot be treated as unexplained.

The Tribunal held that adjudicating the penalty appeal before the quantum appeal was decided would be premature. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the penalty issue was restored to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 and consequential commission were unsustainable on both legal and merit grounds. For earlier years, the assessment was concluded before the search, and no incriminating material was found. The Tribunal also noted issues with the retracted statement, denial of cross-examination, and the assessee's documentary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the residential status alone is not conclusive for exemption under Section 10(4)(ii), as permission from the RBI to maintain the account is an alternative condition. The factual aspect of whether the assessee had such permission was not clearly established.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue had not brought sufficient corroborative material to establish that the assessee deliberately participated in shifting taxable losses or that the loss was fictitious. Suspicion alone cannot replace evidence.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 and consequential commission were unsustainable on both legal and merit grounds. For earlier years, the assessment was concluded before the search, and no incriminating material was found. The Tribunal also noted issues with the retracted statement, denial of cross-examination, and the assessee's documentary evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution due to the delay, lack of condonation petition, and absence of the assessee at the hearing. The Tribunal granted liberty to the assessee to seek recalling of the order by substantiating reasons for non-compliance.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 and consequential commission were unsustainable on both legal and merit grounds. For earlier years, the assessment was concluded before the search, and no incriminating material was found. The Tribunal also noted issues with the retracted statement, denial of cross-examination, and the assessee's documentary evidence.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 and consequential commission were unsustainable on both legal and merit grounds. For earlier years, the assessment was concluded before the search, and no incriminating material was found. The Tribunal also noted issues with the retracted statement, denial of cross-examination, and the assessee's documentary evidence.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 and consequential commission were unsustainable on both legal and merit grounds. For earlier years, the assessment was concluded before the search, and no incriminating material was found. The Tribunal also noted issues with the retracted statement, denial of cross-examination, and the assessee's documentary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate all grounds and did not pass a speaking order as required by Section 250(6). Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not adjudicate the issues properly and that the CIT(A) likely did not grant a hearing. Therefore, the matter was remanded for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly considered the submissions and evidence provided by the assessee. The CIT(A) found that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing loan agreements, bank statements, and financial records of the lender.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly considered the submissions and evidence provided by the assessee. The CIT(A) found that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing loan agreements, bank statements, and financial records of the lender.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly considered the submissions and evidence provided by the assessee. The CIT(A) found that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing loan agreements, bank statements, and financial records of the lender.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly considered the submissions and evidence provided by the assessee. The CIT(A) found that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing loan agreements, bank statements, and financial records of the lender.

The Tribunal found that the issue of repair and maintenance expenses was not examined during the original assessment. Therefore, the reassessment was not a mere change of opinion and fell under Explanation 1 to Section 147. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to dismiss the appeal in limine due to the delay and lack of sufficient cause. The Assessee's failure to appear or provide reasons for non-prosecution also led to the dismissal.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, citing the assessee's failure to appear and the inherent power of a tribunal to dismiss cases when a party does not pursue them. Liberty was granted to seek recalling of the order upon substantiating the reasons for non-compliance.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as the additions made were on different grounds than those specified in the notice for reassessment. Furthermore, the additions on merits were found to be unsupported by adequate factual and computational foundation.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without considering the evidence submitted by the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity. The AO had made additions without appreciating the assessee's contentions and supporting evidence, including confirmations, bank statements, and ITRs.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the reasons provided for the inordinate delay did not constitute a 'sufficient cause' as required by law. The Tribunal emphasized that negligence or lack of diligence on the part of the assessee cannot be a ground for condoning delay.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the reasons provided for the inordinate delay did not constitute a 'sufficient cause' as required by law. The Tribunal emphasized that negligence or lack of diligence on the part of the assessee cannot be a ground for condoning delay.

The Tribunal held that the transaction commenced in 2007 with the allotment letter and part payment, predating the insertion of Section 56(2)(vii)(b). Therefore, the provision could not be applied retrospectively based on the later registration date.

The tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution due to the assessee's failure to appear and prosecute the appeal. However, liberty was granted to the assessee to seek recalling of the order by providing reasons for non-compliance.

The Tribunal held that a mere mismatch in reporting figures in the return processing under Section 143(1) cannot create a tax liability if the substantive provisions of the Act do not warrant it. The utilization of earlier accumulated income, properly disclosed in the revised audit report, should not be taxed under Section 115BBI due to a reporting error.

The Tribunal held that the obligation to deduct TDS arises only when the remittance is chargeable to tax in India. Since the payment was for the outright purchase of a capital asset (trademark), it was not royalty and thus not taxable in the hands of the recipient in India.

The Tribunal noted that the 80G rejection was consequential to the 12AB rejection. Since the 12AB matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, the 80G application was also restored for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the shortfall in reinvestment could not be taxed in the impugned assessment year as the assessee was within the statutory period for investment. Therefore, the basis for levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) did not exist.

The Tribunal held that the fresh notice under section 148 was issued beyond the surviving period of limitation as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to complete the reassessment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) adopted an unduly technical approach and that the explanation for the 87-day delay constituted sufficient cause. The delay arose from the widow's efforts to register as the legal representative and gather documents, which are materially distinguishable from cases of gross negligence.

The ITAT held that since the basis for rejecting the 80G application (rejection of 12AB registration) no longer survived due to a subsequent ITAT order directing 12AB registration, the 80G application needed fresh consideration. The CIT(E) was directed to re-examine the 80G application on its merits.

The Tribunal found that the genuineness of the cash sales and the source of the SBN deposits required further verification. It noted the abnormal surge in cash sales before demonetization and the lack of contemporaneous evidence.

The Tribunal found that the impugned order was passed ex parte and that the assessee deserved another opportunity. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the mere grant of provisional registration does not equate to the commencement of charitable activities. The actual date of commencement requires factual verification, which was not adequately done by the CIT(E).

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from investments in co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as this issue is well-settled by Supreme Court and High Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that the notice under section 148 was issued beyond the surviving period of limitation and was therefore time-barred. Additionally, the approval for issuing the notice was obtained from the wrong authority as per section 151(ii).