ITAT Mumbai Judgments — September 2026

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 set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the condonation petition for the delay and the additional ground.

The Tribunal held that the services rendered did not involve making available technical knowledge or expertise to the Indian recipient in a manner contemplated by the treaty. The receipts were considered business profits attributable to a Permanent Establishment (PE) which the assessee did not have in India.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to examine the additional evidence and remand report submitted by the assessee. The unserved notices alone could not justify upholding the addition without considering subsequent material.

The Tribunal held that Compulsorily Convertible Debentures (CCDs) are debt instruments until their conversion into equity. The re-characterization of CCDs as equity by the TPO was beyond the scope of transfer pricing and lacked the procedural safeguards of GAAR provisions.

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

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 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 the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio because the notice under section 148 was issued without obtaining the required sanction from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, as the reopening was beyond three years. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not adjudicated on merits.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions, noting that the Bombay High Court had previously confirmed the entire advance rent was taxable as capital gains in earlier years. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that since the genuineness of the underlying unsecured loans was already decided in favour of the assessee by a Coordinate Bench, the disallowance of interest on those loans in a subsequent year was unsustainable. The AO could not indirectly reopen the decided issue.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) relied solely on the investigation report without independent inquiry or providing the assessee with an opportunity for cross-examination. The assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing sufficient evidence, and the addition was based on conjectures and surmises.

The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved an opportunity to properly present their case before the CIT(A). The impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee bank was justified in not deducting TDS due to the binding interim order of the Madras High Court. Following the interim directions, which restrained the bank from deducting tax, meant that not deducting tax was not a default.

The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was not justified as it relied solely on an investigation report without independent inquiry. The documentary evidence provided by the assessee, including contract notes, demat statements, and bank transactions, established the genuineness of the share transactions.

The Tribunal held that the purchase and sale of shares were supported by documentary evidence and the assessee had a substantial holding period. No specific material connected the assessee to price manipulation or accommodation entries.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148/148A of the Act was barred by limitation. The reopening was not sustainable as the notice was issued beyond the prescribed time limit as per the first proviso to Section 149(1) of the Act.

The Tribunal found that both the lower authorities failed to properly examine the documents and evidence submitted by the assessee. The CIT(A) deleted the additions without discussing how the documents proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the creditors.

The Tribunal decided the appeal on merits, finding both additions unsustainable. The addition under Section 69 was deleted as the source of investment was explained by banking records and a housing loan. The addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii) was deleted as the actual consideration paid was closer to the stamp duty value, and the difference, if any, was attributable to multiple co-purchasers.

The Tribunal held that Section 167B is not applicable to public charitable trusts, as it is intended for associations of persons where individual shares are indeterminate. The income should be taxed at normal rates.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was bad in law because the approval for reopening was granted by the wrong authority. Consequently, the reassessment framed was void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the AO's reliance on the Investigation Wing's reports and SEBI's ex-parte order was insufficient to treat the sale consideration as unexplained cash credit. The assessee had provided documentary evidence supporting the share transactions.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal where the assessee had no grievances against additions. For the penalty appeals, the Tribunal set aside the penalties, finding them unjustified due to the peculiar circumstances and condoning the delay in filing appeals against the assessment orders.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal where the assessee had no grievances against additions. For the penalty appeals, the Tribunal set aside the penalties, finding them unjustified due to the peculiar circumstances and condoning the delay in filing appeals against the assessment orders.

The Tribunal held that the AO's reliance on the Investigation Wing's reports and SEBI's ex-parte order was insufficient to treat the sale consideration as unexplained cash credit. The assessee had provided documentary evidence supporting the share transactions.

The Tribunal held that a notice issued in the name of a deceased person is non est in law and does not confer jurisdiction. The reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were quashed as a result.

The Tribunal held that the jurisdictional condition for section 153A proceedings was not satisfied as no incriminating material was found during the search for unabated assessments. Consequently, the additions made under sections 68 and 69C were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the jurisdictional condition for section 153A proceedings was not satisfied as no incriminating material was found during the search for unabated assessments. Consequently, the additions made under sections 68 and 69C were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the jurisdictional condition for section 153A proceedings was not satisfied as no incriminating material was found during the search for unabated assessments. Consequently, the additions made under sections 68 and 69C were not sustainable.

The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved an opportunity to properly present their case before the CIT(A). The impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the jurisdictional condition for section 153A proceedings was not satisfied as no incriminating material was found during the search for unabated assessments. Consequently, the additions made under sections 68 and 69C were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the jurisdictional condition for section 153A proceedings was not satisfied as no incriminating material was found during the search for unabated assessments. Consequently, the additions made under sections 68 and 69C were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the jurisdictional condition for section 153A proceedings was not satisfied as no incriminating material was found during the search for unabated assessments. Consequently, the additions made under sections 68 and 69C were not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that private employees are also eligible for the exemption of leave encashment up to ₹25 lakhs as per the CBDT notification. Following various co-ordinate benches, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim.

The Tribunal held that private employees are also eligible for the exemption of leave encashment up to ₹25 lakhs as per the CBDT notification. Following various co-ordinate benches, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed filed a detailed reply with supporting documents, which was evidenced by an acknowledgement. Therefore, the rejection based on non-furnishing of documents was factually incorrect.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed filed a detailed reply with supporting documents, which was evidenced by an acknowledgement. Therefore, the rejection based on non-furnishing of documents was factually incorrect.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, directing the Assessing Officer to recompute interest under Section 244A by first adjusting refunds against the interest component. This followed a previous ITAT ruling in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal where the assessee had no grievances against additions. For the penalty appeals, the Tribunal set aside the penalties, finding them unjustified due to the peculiar circumstances and condoning the delay in filing appeals against the assessment orders.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal where the assessee had no grievances against additions. For the penalty appeals, the Tribunal set aside the penalties, finding them unjustified due to the peculiar circumstances and condoning the delay in filing appeals against the assessment orders.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal where the assessee had no grievances against additions. For the penalty appeals, the Tribunal set aside the penalties, finding them unjustified due to the peculiar circumstances and condoning the delay in filing appeals against the assessment orders.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal where the assessee had no grievances against additions. For the penalty appeals, the Tribunal set aside the penalties, finding them unjustified due to the peculiar circumstances and condoning the delay in filing appeals against the assessment orders.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal where the assessee had no grievances against additions. For the penalty appeals, the Tribunal set aside the penalties, finding them unjustified due to the peculiar circumstances and condoning the delay in filing appeals against the assessment orders.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal where the assessee had no grievances against additions. For the penalty appeals, the Tribunal set aside the penalties, finding them unjustified due to the peculiar circumstances and condoning the delay in filing appeals against the assessment orders.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal where the assessee had no grievances against additions. For the penalty appeals, the Tribunal set aside the penalties, finding them unjustified due to the peculiar circumstances and condoning the delay in filing appeals against the assessment orders.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) has no power to impose such conditional registration/approval, as it is not contemplated by the Act. The conditions were set aside, and the registration/approval were granted without them.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) has no power to impose such conditional registration/approval, as it is not contemplated by the Act. The conditions were set aside, and the registration/approval were granted without them.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, directing the Assessing Officer to recompute interest under Section 244A by first adjusting refunds against the interest component. This followed a previous ITAT ruling in the assessee's own case.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's revisionary power under Section 263 was exercised without jurisdiction. This was because the issue on which the PCIT invoked his powers had already been decided by the first appellate authority, violating Explanation 1(c) of Section 263(1).