ITAT Mumbai Judgments — September 2026

The Tribunal held that the appeals could not be adjudicated on merits due to the absence of the assessment orders. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed in limine for want of admission.

The Tribunal held that the appeals could not be adjudicated on merits due to the absence of the assessment orders. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed in limine for want of admission.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was bad in law as the AO lacked the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to assume jurisdiction over the assessee's case. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was bad in law as the AO lacked the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to assume jurisdiction over the assessee's case. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the issue of 80G approval is intrinsically connected to the 12AB registration. Since the 12AB issue is pending before the CIT, the 80G application should also be considered afresh by the same authority after the 12AB issue is adjudicated.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds regarding the disallowance of accumulation of income under Section 11(2), finding that the assessee had complied with the requisite formalities. It also allowed the claim for 15% statutory exemption on corpus donations if the primary claim was not allowed.

The Tribunal held that for reassessments initiated more than three years after the end of the assessment year, approval must be obtained from a higher authority as specified in Section 151(ii). Approval from the Principal Commissioner was insufficient, rendering the reassessment proceedings invalid.

The Tribunal held that the assessee has provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the genuineness of the share capital and premium. The AO's addition under Section 68 was found to be unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that proceedings under the Income Tax Act, including revisional proceedings under Section 263, cannot be initiated or continued during the moratorium period under Section 14 of the IBC. The impugned revisional order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the PCIT to be revived after the cessation of the moratorium.

The Tribunal found that the existence and contents of the revised return required examination. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for verification of the revised return and other relevant materials, ensuring principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, specifically the finding regarding invalid sanction under Section 151(ii). This invalid sanction was considered a jurisdictional defect, rendering the reassessment invalid.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. It held that profit on sale of investments, dividend income, and expenditure on computer peripherals were not taxable or disallowable. It also ruled that co-insurance fees were not subject to TDS under Section 194H.

The Tribunal held that goodwill arising from a slump sale, even without specific valuation in the agreement, is an eligible intangible asset for depreciation. The disallowance of depreciation and consequential enhancement of book profit were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not aware of the communication and deserved a further opportunity to present its case. The rejection of the application was based on non-furnishing of information.

The Tribunal found that the material on record required a more comprehensive factual examination, including the activities of the lender companies and the routing of funds. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's request for cross-examination of a key witness.

The Tribunal held that the appeals could not be adjudicated on merits due to the absence of the assessment orders. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed in limine for want of admission.

The Tribunal held that the appeals could not be adjudicated on merits due to the absence of the assessment orders. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed in limine for want of admission.

The Tribunal held that Section 69A requires proof of ownership of unrecorded money or assets, which was absent. Stamp duty valuation alone does not establish actual receipt of the difference by the seller, and Section 50C/43CA do not apply to stock-in-trade for the relevant assessment year.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds regarding the disallowance of accumulation of income under Section 11(2), finding that the assessee had complied with the requisite formalities. It also allowed the claim for 15% statutory exemption on corpus donations if the primary claim was not allowed.

The Tribunal restored the issue of project expenses and salary expenses to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, finding that the CIT(A) had not properly examined the merits. However, the deletion of interest expense disallowance was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made sufficient inquiry into the ESOP expenses, as evidenced by the notices issued and the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 was not justified as the assessment order was not erroneous.

The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority should dispose of appeals on merits and not dismiss them for want of prosecution. Considering the facts, the case was remanded to the Ld. Commissioner for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had established the land was used for storage and sufficient interest-free funds were available. No direct nexus was proven between interest-bearing funds and the land acquisition or construction.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to grant the assessee one more opportunity to effectively present its case for condonation of delay, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

The Tribunal held that the entire purchase amount could not be disallowed as income since the corresponding sales were not disputed and the assessee had accounted for the resulting profit. However, some addition was warranted for the benefit derived from obtaining accommodation bills.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to grant the assessee one more opportunity to effectively present its case for condonation of delay, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to grant the assessee one more opportunity to effectively present its case for condonation of delay, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to grant the assessee one more opportunity to effectively present its case for condonation of delay, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to grant the assessee one more opportunity to effectively present its case for condonation of delay, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to grant the assessee one more opportunity to effectively present its case for condonation of delay, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

The Tribunal held that the rejection was incorrect as Rule 17A(2) of the Income-tax Rules recognizes institutions created otherwise than under an instrument and requires submission of documents evidencing creation or establishment. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) erred in insisting on a formal instrument when such documents were not available, and other evidence of creation and functioning was provided.

The Tribunal held that the additions under section 68 and consequential disallowances of interest under section 69C could not be sustained in the completed or unabated assessment years in the absence of incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal relied on the decision in *Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT*, stating that the jurisdictional requirement for disturbing a completed assessment under section 153A is the discovery of incriminating material during the search. The Tribunal found that the material relied upon by the Revenue, including statements and field inquiries contemporaneous with the search, did not reveal the loan to be undisclosed income, nor did it establish a direct nexus with the additions. Evidence gathered during subsequent third-party searches or assessment proceedings did not meet the threshold. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A)'s reasoning that doubts regarding identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness constituted incriminating material was unsustainable. Consequently, the additions and disallowances were deleted for all assessment years. The grounds challenging the additions on merits were rendered academic and left open, with no finding on the merits of the loan transactions.

The Tribunal held that the additions under section 68 and consequential disallowances of interest under section 69C could not be sustained in the completed or unabated assessment years in the absence of incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal relied on the decision in *Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT*, stating that the jurisdictional requirement for disturbing a completed assessment under section 153A is the discovery of incriminating material during the search. The Tribunal found that the material relied upon by the Revenue, including statements and field inquiries contemporaneous with the search, did not reveal the loan to be undisclosed income, nor did it establish a direct nexus with the additions. Evidence gathered during subsequent third-party searches or assessment proceedings did not meet the threshold. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A)'s reasoning that doubts regarding identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness constituted incriminating material was unsustainable. Consequently, the additions and disallowances were deleted for all assessment years. The grounds challenging the additions on merits were rendered academic and left open, with no finding on the merits of the loan transactions.

The Tribunal held that the additions under section 68 and consequential disallowances of interest under section 69C could not be sustained in the completed or unabated assessment years in the absence of incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal relied on the decision in *Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT*, stating that the jurisdictional requirement for disturbing a completed assessment under section 153A is the discovery of incriminating material during the search. The Tribunal found that the material relied upon by the Revenue, including statements and field inquiries contemporaneous with the search, did not reveal the loan to be undisclosed income, nor did it establish a direct nexus with the additions. Evidence gathered during subsequent third-party searches or assessment proceedings did not meet the threshold. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A)'s reasoning that doubts regarding identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness constituted incriminating material was unsustainable. Consequently, the additions and disallowances were deleted for all assessment years. The grounds challenging the additions on merits were rendered academic and left open, with no finding on the merits of the loan transactions.

The Tribunal held that the rejection was incorrect as Rule 17A(2) of the Income-tax Rules recognizes institutions created otherwise than under an instrument and requires submission of documents evidencing creation or establishment. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) erred in insisting on a formal instrument when such documents were not available, and other evidence of creation and functioning was provided.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application solely on the ground of not possessing a formal trust deed/MOA. Rule 17A(2) allows for institutions created otherwise than under an instrument, and other documents evidencing creation and establishment should be considered.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals, which formed the basis of these penalties, had been restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the penalty appeals also required reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that the rejection was incorrect as Rule 17A(2) of the Income-tax Rules recognizes institutions created otherwise than under an instrument and requires submission of documents evidencing creation or establishment. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) erred in insisting on a formal instrument when such documents were not available, and other evidence of creation and functioning was provided.

The Tribunal held that the additions under section 68 and consequential disallowances of interest under section 69C could not be sustained in the completed or unabated assessment years in the absence of incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal relied on the decision in *Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT*, stating that the jurisdictional requirement for disturbing a completed assessment under section 153A is the discovery of incriminating material during the search. The Tribunal found that the material relied upon by the Revenue, including statements and field inquiries contemporaneous with the search, did not reveal the loan to be undisclosed income, nor did it establish a direct nexus with the additions. Evidence gathered during subsequent third-party searches or assessment proceedings did not meet the threshold. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A)'s reasoning that doubts regarding identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness constituted incriminating material was unsustainable. Consequently, the additions and disallowances were deleted for all assessment years. The grounds challenging the additions on merits were rendered academic and left open, with no finding on the merits of the loan transactions.

The Tribunal held that the additions under section 68 and consequential disallowances of interest under section 69C could not be sustained in the completed or unabated assessment years in the absence of incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal relied on the decision in *Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT*, stating that the jurisdictional requirement for disturbing a completed assessment under section 153A is the discovery of incriminating material during the search. The Tribunal found that the material relied upon by the Revenue, including statements and field inquiries contemporaneous with the search, did not reveal the loan to be undisclosed income, nor did it establish a direct nexus with the additions. Evidence gathered during subsequent third-party searches or assessment proceedings did not meet the threshold. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A)'s reasoning that doubts regarding identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness constituted incriminating material was unsustainable. Consequently, the additions and disallowances were deleted for all assessment years. The grounds challenging the additions on merits were rendered academic and left open, with no finding on the merits of the loan transactions.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals, which formed the basis of these penalties, had been restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the penalty appeals also required reconsideration.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeals, which formed the basis of these penalties, had been restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the penalty appeals also required reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that outright rejection of the claim solely on account of mismatch or unconditional allowance of the entire credit would not be justified. The issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the approval for reopening was obtained from an authority not prescribed under Section 151(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the notice was issued after three years from the end of the assessment year. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had withdrawn the bogus donation and paid taxes, and the alleged commission was a petty amount based on estimation, the addition made by the AO was not justified. Therefore, the appellate order confirming the addition was set aside.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for holding such a large amount of cash at home to be not tenable, especially given his limited income. The filing of the previous year's return after the demonetization period was considered an afterthought to justify the deposits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons to be bona fide. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the present appeal was a duplicate and therefore, its continuation would serve no purpose. No separate adjudication on the grounds raised was necessary.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without valid sanction and proper procedure. The notice issued under Section 148 was quashed due to a foundational jurisdictional defect.

The Tribunal held that the receipts did not qualify as royalty as there was no transfer of information concerning industrial, commercial, or scientific experience. Furthermore, the 'make available' condition for FTS was not met, as the service recipient could not independently apply the technical knowledge. Therefore, the receipts were considered business income not taxable in India due to the absence of a Permanent Establishment.