ITAT Mumbai Judgments — September 2026

The Tribunal held that while estimation of income was justified, the 15% rate was excessive given the substantial cash expenditure, fluctuating year-wise results, and nature of projects. A rate of 5% was deemed fair and reasonable.

The Tribunal held that while estimation of income was justified, the 15% rate was excessive given the substantial cash expenditure, fluctuating year-wise results, and nature of projects. A rate of 5% was deemed fair and reasonable.

The Tribunal held that while estimation of income was justified, the 15% rate was excessive given the substantial cash expenditure, fluctuating year-wise results, and nature of projects. A rate of 5% was deemed fair and reasonable.

The Tribunal held that while estimation of income was justified, the 15% rate was excessive given the substantial cash expenditure, fluctuating year-wise results, and nature of projects. A rate of 5% was deemed fair and reasonable.

The Tribunal held that while estimation of income was justified, the 15% rate was excessive given the substantial cash expenditure, fluctuating year-wise results, and nature of projects. A rate of 5% was deemed fair and reasonable.

The Tribunal held that while estimation of income was justified, the 15% rate was excessive given the substantial cash expenditure, fluctuating year-wise results, and nature of projects. A rate of 5% was deemed fair and reasonable.

The Tribunal held that while estimation of income was justified, the 15% rate was excessive given the substantial cash expenditure, fluctuating year-wise results, and nature of projects. A rate of 5% was deemed fair and reasonable.

The Tribunal held that while estimation of income was justified, the 15% rate was excessive given the substantial cash expenditure, fluctuating year-wise results, and nature of projects. A rate of 5% was deemed fair and reasonable.

The Tribunal held that while estimation of income was justified, the 15% rate was excessive given the substantial cash expenditure, fluctuating year-wise results, and nature of projects. A rate of 5% was deemed fair and reasonable.

The Tribunal held that while estimation of income was justified, the 15% rate was excessive given the substantial cash expenditure, fluctuating year-wise results, and nature of projects. A rate of 5% was deemed fair and reasonable.

The Tribunal held that while estimation of income was justified, the 15% rate was excessive given the substantial cash expenditure, fluctuating year-wise results, and nature of projects. A rate of 5% was deemed fair and reasonable.

The Tribunal held that the amount received was a capital receipt, not income from other sources, as it was for the surrender of a litigative right. The addition of ₹55.75 crore was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that Section 69A was wrongly invoked as the assessee was merely a confirming party and not involved in any property transaction or receipt of corpus compensation. It also found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for LIC premiums and medical insurance payments.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order, directing reconsideration of the Section 80G application. The decision is contingent on the outcome of the assessee's pending application for regular registration under Section 12A/12B.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as infructuous. The pendency of registration proceedings did not extinguish the statutory appeal arising from the intimation. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus under Section 68 by submitting all relevant documentary evidence, which the revenue had neither discredited nor rejected. The AO relied on the Investigation Wing's report and a retracted statement of Shri Vipul Jain without providing the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that the AO made no independent inquiry and failed to point out any infirmity in the voluminous evidence submitted by the assessee regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share applicants. The Tribunal found the assessee's case covered by the judgments of the Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. and the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Lovely Exports (P.) Ltd., as well as numerous Mumbai ITAT orders where similar share applicants were found genuine. The AO's addition was based on suspicion, not evidence. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had shown the impugned amount as share application from an identifiable source through banking channels, and the AO had not shown anything to dispute this. The AO's rejection of the assessee's explanation was not based on proper appreciation of material. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s appellate order and upheld it. The grounds raised by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had deleted the additions without proper independent examination and that the assessment orders were non-speaking. The Tribunal held that the matter required a fresh assessment by the AO.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had deleted the additions without proper independent examination and that the assessment orders were non-speaking. The Tribunal held that the matter required a fresh assessment by the AO.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had deleted the additions without proper independent examination and that the assessment orders were non-speaking. The Tribunal held that the matter required a fresh assessment by the AO.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had deleted the additions without proper independent examination and that the assessment orders were non-speaking. The Tribunal held that the matter required a fresh assessment by the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's communication requesting its original return be treated as the return for reassessment constituted sufficient compliance with Section 148. Crucially, the Assessing Officer failed to issue a notice under Section 143(2) thereafter, which is mandatory.

The Tribunal held that the lender, M/s Aarohi Creations LLP, had sufficient turnover and creditworthiness to provide the loan. Since the loan was repaid and the identity of the lender was established, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the AO relied solely on information from the Investigation Wing without independent application of mind or establishing a live nexus with the assessee. The CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus by providing documentary evidence. Since the transactions were routed through banking channels and the evidence was not controverted, the additions made by the AO were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of the impugned purchases. The reliance on payments made by cheque was insufficient without proof of transportation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the genuineness of the impugned purchases. The reliance on payments made by cheque was insufficient without proof of transportation.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by admitting additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A, as a report from the AO was not sought. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of receiving only 70,000 and acting as a facilitator was not supported by the tripartite agreement. It also found that the assessee's claim for cost of acquisition based on FMV as of 01-04-2001 was not properly substantiated.

The Tribunal held that the payments towards the property acquisition were identifiable and supported by documentary evidence, including bank statements of co-owners and a share certificate in all three names. The addition made under Section 69 was found unsustainable.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to represent their case before the CIT(A) after paying a cost.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by allowing relief on subcontracting expenses and on-money additions. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by allowing relief on subcontracting expenses and on-money additions. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by allowing relief on subcontracting expenses and on-money additions. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by allowing relief on subcontracting expenses and on-money additions. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by allowing relief on subcontracting expenses and on-money additions. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by allowing relief on subcontracting expenses and on-money additions. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by allowing relief on subcontracting expenses and on-money additions. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the submissions and evidence provided by the assessee to both the AO and CIT(A) were either not considered or not properly appreciated. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal upheld the principle that only the profit element in disputed transactions is taxable, not the entire amount. It also confirmed the 6% profit rate but modified the addition by applying it to the actual sales figure of Rs. 1,31,58,877.54, resulting in a reduced addition.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the interest allowable under Section 244A by first adjusting the refund against the interest component. For the disallowance under Section 14A, the Tribunal directed it to be restricted to 1% of the exempt income, following previous precedents.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by allowing relief on subcontracting expenses and on-money additions. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal regarding on-money additions, restricting them to a profit element. It also allowed the assessee's grounds concerning sub-contracting expenses while dismissing the Revenue's appeals.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by allowing relief on subcontracting expenses and on-money additions. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by allowing relief on subcontracting expenses and on-money additions. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by allowing relief on subcontracting expenses and on-money additions. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal regarding on-money additions, restricting them to a profit element. It also allowed the assessee's grounds concerning sub-contracting expenses, dismissing the Revenue's related appeals.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by allowing relief on subcontracting expenses and on-money additions. The Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

The Tribunal restored the issue of disallowance of interest expenditure and compensation paid to the landlord back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. The AO is directed to verify the documents and provide the assessee with an opportunity to present further evidence.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest expenses under Section 24(b) was not warranted if the assessee could demonstrate the nexus between borrowed funds and property construction, especially considering past consistent treatment. The disallowance under Section 14A was deleted as no exempt income was earned. One ground was dismissed as not pressed.

The Tribunal upheld the principle that only the profit element in disputed transactions is taxable, not the entire amount. It also confirmed the 6% profit rate but modified the addition by applying it to the actual sales figure of Rs. 1,31,58,877.54, resulting in a reduced addition.