ITAT Mumbai Judgments — September 2026

The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision and dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the inclusion of certain incomes for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii).

The Tribunal held that payments made by an advertising agency to newspaper and media companies for advertisement space are not subject to TDS under Section 194C, as clarified by CBDT Circular No. 05/2016. The disallowance on finance costs was restricted to 10% of the total amount.

The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision and dismissed the Revenue's grounds of appeal. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings regarding the inclusion of certain incomes for deduction under Section 36(1)(viii).

The Tribunal held that the ratio of the Sun Engineering Works case was not applicable as the assessee was not making a fresh claim but merely seeking credit for TDS already available. Therefore, the AO was directed to allow the TDS credit.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was barred by limitation, following the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings were deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposit was out of cash-in-hand from the previous year, which was duly recorded in the assessee's books of accounts. A clerical error in the prior year's return should not override contemporaneous books of accounts.

The Tribunal held that the excess stock represented undisclosed business income, not unexplained investment. Therefore, it should be taxed at normal business rates, not the higher rate under Section 115BBE.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the cash deposits through its regularly maintained books of account, which showed a cash balance exceeding the deposits. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had proceeded on a flawed premise, misinterpreting the assessee's explanation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's business model involving back-to-back invoicing and price volatility in agro commodities is a normal industry practice. The evidence presented by the Department did not establish a direct nexus between the assessee and the alleged cash circulation.

The Tribunal held that if the very foundation for assuming jurisdiction under Section 147 ceases to exist, the reassessment proceedings cannot sustain other additions. Since the addition forming the basis of reopening was deleted and accepted by the Revenue, the reassessment order was rendered unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that an appeal filed against a deceased person is not maintainable. Since the legal heir was not impleaded despite opportunities, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the peak theory cannot be applied retrospectively to absorb an earlier year's investment into a subsequent year's peak credit without complete bank statements. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh examination of the peak credit claim.

The tribunal held that the delay of 191 days in filing the appeal was not sufficiently explained and did not inspire confidence. Therefore, the application for condonation of delay was rejected.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the addition of Rs. 53,00,000 as unexplained investment based on incriminating material found during a search. The Tribunal also dismissed the ground related to undisclosed income and the disallowance under Section 80C, finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal held that if the very foundation for assuming jurisdiction under Section 147 ceases to exist, the reassessment proceedings cannot sustain other additions. Since the addition forming the basis of reopening was deleted and accepted by the Revenue, the reassessment order was rendered unsustainable.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee and restored the matter to the AO for a de novo assessment. The AO was directed to examine the issue in light of the new evidence and provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial onus by providing documentary evidence of genuine transactions through a recognized stock exchange. In the absence of specific material against the assessee, the addition based on general allegations was not sustainable.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was given an opportunity to present further documents to substantiate their claim regarding days spent outside India, subject to a cost.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It further held that the penalties under Section 271C could not survive as the assessee acted bona fide based on a High Court direction, and the underlying demands were set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It further held that the penalties under Section 271C could not survive as the assessee acted bona fide based on a High Court direction, and the underlying demands were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was liable to be dismissed due to low tax effect. However, liberty was granted to the Revenue to seek recall of the order if the appeal fell within any exceptions prescribed in the circulars.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal upon payment of costs. It held that the CIT(A) erred by deciding the appeal without considering the remand report and the material furnished by the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It further held that the penalties under Section 271C could not survive as the assessee acted bona fide based on a High Court direction, and the underlying demands were set aside.

The ITAT dismissed the assessee's appeal as they did not appear and no new evidence was presented to controvert the CIT(A)'s findings. The tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal found that the issue required fresh verification regarding the source of cash, availability of funds, and the treatment of expenditure in the company's books. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was validly initiated as the additions were based on incriminating material and statements, not mere estimation. However, since the quantum additions were subsequently reduced, the penalty was also reduced proportionately to the tax evaded on the reduced additions.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was validly initiated as the additions were based on incriminating material and statements, not mere estimation. However, since the quantum additions were subsequently reduced, the penalty was also reduced proportionately to the tax evaded on the reduced additions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It further held that the penalties under Section 271C could not survive as the assessee acted bona fide based on a High Court direction, and the underlying demands were set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It further held that the penalties under Section 271C could not survive as the assessee acted bona fide based on a High Court direction, and the underlying demands were set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It further held that the penalties under Section 271C could not survive as the assessee acted bona fide based on a High Court direction, and the underlying demands were set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It further held that the penalties under Section 271C could not survive as the assessee acted bona fide based on a High Court direction, and the underlying demands were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was validly initiated as the additions were based on incriminating material and statements, not mere estimation. However, since the quantum additions were subsequently reduced, the penalty was also reduced proportionately to the tax evaded on the reduced additions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It further held that the penalties under Section 271C could not survive as the assessee acted bona fide based on a High Court direction, and the underlying demands were set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It further held that the penalties under Section 271C could not survive as the assessee acted bona fide based on a High Court direction, and the underlying demands were set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It further held that the penalties under Section 271C could not survive as the assessee acted bona fide based on a High Court direction, and the underlying demands were set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It further held that the penalties under Section 271C could not survive as the assessee acted bona fide based on a High Court direction, and the underlying demands were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the issue of claiming CSR expenses under Section 80G is debatable, and the AO's view was plausible. Since the AO had examined the issue and taken a view supported by judicial precedents, the PCIT's revisionary order under Section 263 was unjustified.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It further held that the penalties under Section 271C could not survive as the assessee acted bona fide based on a High Court direction, and the underlying demands were set aside.

The Tribunal held that complete disallowance was not justified as purchases were recorded in regular books and payments were made through banking channels. However, the 10% addition by CIT(A) was also not substantiated. The Tribunal imputed an additional gross profit of 2% on the disputed purchases.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It further held that the penalties under Section 271C could not survive as the assessee acted bona fide based on a High Court direction, and the underlying demands were set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It further held that the penalties under Section 271C could not survive as the assessee acted bona fide based on a High Court direction, and the underlying demands were set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It further held that the penalties under Section 271C could not survive as the assessee acted bona fide based on a High Court direction, and the underlying demands were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in refusing to admit additional evidence, as some documents were already with the department and others were essential for a fair adjudication. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for de novo verification.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It further held that the penalties under Section 271C could not survive as the assessee acted bona fide based on a High Court direction, and the underlying demands were set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It further held that the penalties under Section 271C could not survive as the assessee acted bona fide based on a High Court direction, and the underlying demands were set aside.

The Tribunal held that complete disallowance was not justified as purchases were recorded in regular books and payments were made through banking channels. However, the 10% addition by CIT(A) was also not substantiated. The Tribunal imputed an additional gross profit of 2% on the disputed purchases.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It further held that the penalties under Section 271C could not survive as the assessee acted bona fide based on a High Court direction, and the underlying demands were set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It further held that the penalties under Section 271C could not survive as the assessee acted bona fide based on a High Court direction, and the underlying demands were set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It further held that the penalties under Section 271C could not survive as the assessee acted bona fide based on a High Court direction, and the underlying demands were set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It further held that the penalties under Section 271C could not survive as the assessee acted bona fide based on a High Court direction, and the underlying demands were set aside.