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 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 if the lender is traceable through PAN and other records. The Tribunal found that the assessee had fulfilled the criteria under section 68.

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 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 restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer, directing the officer to provide all relied-upon materials and grant adequate opportunity to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

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 in filing the appeal due to the death of the assessee and the subsequent circumstances of the legal heir. The order of the CIT(A) was considered null and void as it was passed against a deceased person without bringing the legal heirs on record.

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 since the Income Tax Department did not file any claim during the CIRP, and the resolution plan was approved by the NCLT, the reassessment proceedings and consequential demand are extinguished and non-operational as per Supreme Court and High Court judgments.

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 admitted new grounds and additional evidence, noting that the CIT(A) had not considered the assessee's submissions. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in rejecting the DVO's valuation without proper examination and that the CIT(A) also erred. The Tribunal found that the assessee's independent valuation and evidence of a subsequent sale of the same property were not adequately considered.

The Tribunal held that not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witness, whose statement was the basis of the addition, violated the principles of natural justice. The AO was directed to allow cross-examination and decide the issue afresh.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not sustainable as the amounts were opening balances of loans and advances, and the assessee had demonstrated their genuineness with corroborative evidence. The Tribunal also noted that in AY 2014-15, the same amount was added twice.

The Tribunal held that since the additions for the principal amount of unsecured loans were deleted by a coordinate bench of the ITAT and had attained finality, the consequential disallowance of interest on these loans in subsequent years could not be sustained.

The Tribunal held that an appeal must conform to the prescribed form and manner, including filing a duly signed Memorandum of Appeal and an application for condonation of delay if time-barred. Since the assessee failed to rectify these mandatory defects despite a notice, the appeal could not be treated as validly instituted.

The Tribunal decided the appeals based on the material on record and the Revenue's submissions, as the assessee did not appear. The Revenue's representative supported the orders of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the failure of the AO to pass a speaking order disposing of the assessee's objections before proceeding with reassessment is a jurisdictional infirmity. Such a failure vitiates the entire reassessment proceedings and cannot be cured by dealing with objections in substance within the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not exercise its discretion properly in dismissing the appeals solely on delay without a proper examination of the explanation and surrounding circumstances. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for reconsideration of the condonation applications.

The Tribunal accepted the additional evidence filed by the assessee regarding the payment for share investment. It granted one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim by placing the additional evidence before the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that once the jurisdictional High Court has authoritatively settled an issue, authorities are bound by it. Special conditions making the grant of registration and approval contingent on a proposed future appeal are legally unsustainable and cannot be imposed.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals. For AY 2017-18, the grounds raised by the Revenue did not arise from the CIT(A)'s order. For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to determine ALV based on standard rent under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, as the Assessing Officer had not correctly applied the law.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals. For AY 2017-18, the grounds raised by the Revenue did not arise from the CIT(A)'s order. For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction to determine ALV based on standard rent under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, as the Assessing Officer had not correctly applied the law.

The Tribunal held that once the jurisdictional High Court has authoritatively settled an issue, authorities are bound by it. Special conditions making the grant of registration and approval contingent on a proposed future appeal are legally unsustainable and cannot be imposed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was valid as the AO had a prima facie case based on tangible material. However, the disallowance of loss was set aside due to violation of natural justice, as the AO did not provide the assessee with the adverse material relied upon.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no reason to interfere. The Tribunal followed the decisions of Coordinate Benches on identical factual controversies. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence (contract notes) submitted by the assessee, which prima facie supported the claim that investments were funded from sale proceeds of shares. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to raise the additional ground, noting it was a mixed question of law and facts. However, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration and verification of facts.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to raise the additional ground, noting it was a mixed question of law and facts. However, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration and verification of facts.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including bank statements of herself and her husband, demonstrating the source of the funds. The lower authorities had failed to appreciate this evidence, thus the addition under Section 68 was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 11, particularly for accumulation of income under Section 11(2). It found that the subsequent conduct of the assessee corroborated the bona fide character of the accumulation, and inconsistencies in Form 10 were not fatal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 11, particularly for accumulation of income under Section 11(2). It found that the subsequent conduct of the assessee corroborated the bona fide character of the accumulation, and inconsistencies in Form 10 were not fatal.

The Tribunal held that interest under Section 234B cannot be charged on additional tax liability arising solely from a retrospective amendment enacted after the advance tax payment dates. The Assessing Officer was directed to recompute the interest accordingly.

The Tribunal held that for institutions established otherwise than under a formal instrument, contemporaneous public records like the Schedule II application and registration certificate under the Public Trusts Act constitute sufficient evidence of creation and establishment. The absence of a formal trust deed or a scheme is not fatal for registration.

The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹71,29,000 as short-term capital gain in the hands of the assessee-society lacked both factual and legal foundation. The assessment order was based on an assumption of property sale without possessing the underlying instrument. The AO was unaware of the precise nature of the transaction, the property transferred, the parties, or the consideration. The registered instrument obtained during remand proceedings revealed a tripartite agreement among the society, a developer, and two individual members. The society was a confirming party, and the rights transferred and consideration of ₹29,07,000 pertained to the individual members' surrender of their balance entitlement. The figure of ₹71,29,000 was a stamp-duty valuation, not actual consideration received by the society. The Tribunal found that no capital asset belonging to the society was transferred, and no consideration accrued to it. The addition was directed to be deleted. Grounds challenging the validity of reopening were rendered academic.

The Tribunal decided the appeals based on the material on record and the Revenue's submissions, as the assessee did not appear. The Revenue's representative supported the orders of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was bad in law due to non-compliance with Section 149(1)(b) regarding the escaped income threshold and Section 151 regarding the competent authority for approval. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's revised return and payment of tax, coupled with the lack of specific details regarding misreporting in the penalty notice, entitled the assessee to immunity from penalty. The penalty was levied without proper adjudication of the ingredients of misreporting.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer could not be sustained. It noted that the AO relied on an unverified statement and did not provide the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination. Following previous decisions involving the same scrip, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) had not considered previous ITAT orders in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in light of those decisions.

The Tribunal decided the appeals based on the material on record and the Revenue's submissions, as the assessee did not appear. The Revenue's representative supported the orders of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal without adjudication and for want of prosecution. The Tribunal noted that the Ld.CIT(A) has the role of an adjudicator and is supposed to decide on both legal and factual grounds, not dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. The observation that granting relief on technical/legal grounds would send a wrong message to the taxpaying community was deemed inappropriate, as such an approach fails to provide justice. The Tribunal found that the Ld.CIT(A)'s order was passed on a gazette holiday, though this was not the primary reason for setting aside the order. Consequently, the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate upon all grounds taken by the assessee, both on merits and technical/legal grounds, by passing a speaking order after providing a proper opportunity to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) had not considered previous ITAT orders in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in light of those decisions.

The Tribunal decided the appeals based on the material on record and the Revenue's submissions, as the assessee did not appear. The Revenue's representative supported the orders of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to exemption under Section 11, particularly for accumulation of income under Section 11(2). It found that the subsequent conduct of the assessee corroborated the bona fide character of the accumulation, and inconsistencies in Form 10 were not fatal.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty as the assessee failed to substantiate its claims and disclose all primary facts. The Tribunal restored the issue of the validity of the penalty notice to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) had not considered previous ITAT orders in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in light of those decisions.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the deduction, finding that while payment was through banking channels, the surrounding circumstances, including investigation findings about the recipient party and the isolated nature of the donation by the assessee, cast doubt on its genuineness.

The Tribunal decided the appeals based on the material on record and the Revenue's submissions, as the assessee did not appear. The Revenue's representative supported the orders of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application for additional evidence, deeming the documents crucial. The matter was restored to the AO for factual verification of the TDS deduction and to grant credit if satisfied.