ITAT Mumbai Judgments — September 2026

The Tribunal held that creditworthiness under section 68 is established if the lender has adequate reserves and bank balances, and the funds were received and interest paid. Identity is established through traceable details like PAN and address. The Tribunal found that the assessee had fulfilled the criteria of section 68.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bona fide explanation for the difference in the capital loss claimed and that which was finally accepted. The penalty was deleted as the assessee had disclosed the transaction and the claim arose from a plausible view regarding indexation and expenses actually incurred but not fully substantiated within the assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the confirmation letter submitted by the assessee, showing a higher opening balance and debit transactions, was not considered by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification of these details.

The Tribunal decided that the sale/transfer of the property (stock-in-trade) was concluded in FY 2013-14, not FY 2015-16 as held by the lower authorities. This was based on the assessee receiving full consideration, handing over possession, and substantial rights being transferred in FY 2013-14.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO. The Tribunal is examining whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition, considering the AO's findings regarding the investor's low income and shared address.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal for statistical purposes, restoring the matter to the AO. This was to allow the assessee an opportunity to furnish additional evidence and substantiate their claim regarding the investment reconciliation.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the condonation of delay without proper application of mind and in a cryptic manner. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal emphasized a liberal approach to condonation of delay to advance substantial justice.

The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowances under Section 40A(3) to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification. Additions under Section 69A were to be computed on the basis of undisclosed business receipts, not the entire amount.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were not invalid and that the issue of Section 40A(3) disallowances should be restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification. Additions under Section 69A were to be computed based on undisclosed business receipts.

The Tribunal held that once the assessee's role as an intermediary handling funds belonging to principals was accepted, the gross cash movement could not be treated as income. The estimate of 5% by the CIT(A) was deemed unsustainable without specific discrepancies.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer (AO) had not verified the cash flow summary as it was not filed before him. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Safe Harbour Rules were not applicable for the assessment year in question, thus the 20% markup could not be mechanically applied. However, it also noted that the consideration received should not be accepted as arm's length without further examination, and due to the time elapsed, a fresh comparability exercise might not be practicable.

The Tribunal held that the Safe Harbour Rules were not applicable for the assessment year in question, thus the 20% markup could not be mechanically applied. However, it also noted that the consideration received should not be accepted as arm's length without further examination, and due to the time elapsed, a fresh comparability exercise might not be practicable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is statutorily obligated to adjudicate appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them solely for non-prosecution. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the activities of NICMAR, including in-service training and consultancy, fall under Section 11(4) of the Income Tax Act, not Section 11(4A). Therefore, the requirement of maintaining separate books of account under Section 11(4A) is not applicable.

The Tribunal held that creditworthiness under section 68 is established if the lender has adequate reserves and bank balances, and the funds were received and interest paid. Identity is established through traceable details like PAN and address. The Tribunal found that the assessee had fulfilled the criteria of section 68.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 was bad in law because the approval for reopening was obtained from the wrong authority as per Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio.

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order deleting the additions. The AO relied solely on the Investigation Wing's report without independent verification or proper discussion of the assessee's explanation and submitted documents.

The Tribunal held that payments for IT support and management services to the Head Office were allowable as per Article 7 of the India-Germany DTAA. It also directed the deletion of additions made for reserve for unexpired risk in book profit computation under Section 115JB.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's consistent non-compliance and the delay in filing appeals at multiple stages. However, considering the penalty and CIT(A) orders were passed ex parte, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found the addition excessive and amounting to double addition. It held that a reasonable profit element should be added, restricting the addition to 1% of purchases as suppressed profit.

The Tribunal held that hardship compensation received by the assessee from a developer in terms of a re-development agreement is a capital receipt, not revenue income. Therefore, it is not taxable under the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 and the subsequent reassessment order were bad in law due to the incorrect authority granting approval. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal, the reassessment was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's view allowing 80G deduction on CSR expenditure was a plausible view, especially given divergent tribunal rulings. Therefore, the PCIT's revision order under Section 263 was not sustainable.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and restored both applications for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to furnish all required documents and cooperate with the proceedings.

The Tribunal held that since the revised assessment order did not contain any additions, the very basis for levying the penalty under Section 270A of the Act ceased to exist. Therefore, the penalty order was liable to be set aside.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to present its case. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening was obtained from the wrong authority as per Section 151(ii) of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the notice issued under Section 148 and the reassessment proceedings were deemed bad in law.

The Tribunal held that there was no justification for levying penalty for each default, especially without specific satisfaction of notice service. Considering the assessee's low income and the restoration of the quantum assessment, the penalty was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the closing balance in the excel sheet could not be treated as undisclosed sundry debtors or unexplained money. However, additions for cash rent and stock differences were sustained due to lack of satisfactory reconciliation and evidence.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities were not justified in making the addition. The assessee's explanation regarding the source of funds and the agreement to sale was accepted.

The Tribunal held that the closing balance in the excel sheet could not be treated as undisclosed sundry debtors or unexplained money. However, additions for cash rent and stock differences were sustained due to lack of satisfactory reconciliation and evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 423 days in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause and the principle of substantial justice. The appeal was admitted for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence under Rule 29, finding it relevant to the core issues of the dispute. Since the evidence required factual verification, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to present its case. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and restored both applications for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to furnish all required documents and cooperate with the proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the closing balance in the excel sheet could not be treated as undisclosed sundry debtors or unexplained money. However, additions for cash rent and stock differences were sustained due to lack of satisfactory reconciliation and evidence.

The Tribunal held that the absence of an explicit irrevocability or dissolution clause in the trust deed is not a valid ground for rejecting an application for registration or renewal under Section 12AB. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision on this matter.

The Tribunal held that the closing balance in the excel sheet could not be treated as undisclosed sundry debtors or unexplained money. However, additions for cash rent and stock differences were sustained due to lack of satisfactory reconciliation and evidence.

The Tribunal held that the approval for the Section 148 notice was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, which is not the specified authority for reassessment proceedings initiated beyond three years. Therefore, the notice under Section 148 was deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that the activities of NICMAR, including in-service training and consultancy, fall under Section 11(4) of the Income Tax Act, not Section 11(4A). Therefore, the requirement of maintaining separate books of account under Section 11(4A) is not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had conducted a specific inquiry, considered relevant evidence, and arrived at a permissible conclusion. The PCIT's view that further inquiry was desirable did not make the assessment order erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) cannot impose conditional registration or approval linked to future litigation. Such conditions are beyond the scope of Section 12AB and the powers vested in the CIT(E).

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) cannot impose conditional registration or approval linked to future litigation. Such conditions are beyond the scope of Section 12AB and the powers vested in the CIT(E).

The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits was supported by affidavits and bank details of family members. The mere fact of joint account holding was not sufficient to treat all deposits as unexplained money belonging to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the Safe Harbour Rules were not applicable for the assessment year in question, thus the 20% markup could not be mechanically applied. However, it also noted that the consideration received should not be accepted as arm's length without further examination, and due to the time elapsed, a fresh comparability exercise might not be practicable.

The Tribunal held that once the assessee's role as an intermediary handling funds belonging to principals was accepted, the gross cash movement could not be treated as income. The estimate of 5% by the CIT(A) was deemed unsustainable without specific discrepancies.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's persistent non-compliance and negligence. However, considering the ex-parte nature of the lower orders and the Tribunal's function to administer justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Safe Harbour Rules were not applicable for the assessment year in question, thus the 20% markup could not be mechanically applied. However, it also noted that the consideration received should not be accepted as arm's length without further examination, and due to the time elapsed, a fresh comparability exercise might not be practicable.

The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowances under Section 40A(3) to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification. Additions under Section 69A were to be computed on the basis of undisclosed business receipts, not the entire amount.