ITAT Mumbai Judgments — September 2026

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 penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) are distinct from quantum proceedings and an addition based on estimation does not automatically imply concealment of income. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- under Section 68 of the Act could not be sustained. The assessee had furnished substantial documentary evidence, including share application forms, Board resolutions, PAN particulars, income-tax returns, audited financial statements, and bank statements of the subscriber companies, with transactions routed through banking channels. Corporate records like Form 20B also supported the share subscription. The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition primarily based on Investigation Wing findings concerning the Shri Pravin Kumar Jain group, without bringing specific material on record to demonstrate that the Rs. 30,00,000/- originated from the assessee's coffers or that the assessee paid cash for alleged accommodation entries. The Tribunal followed the ratio of the Coordinate Bench decision in M/s. Lalwani Estates & Realtors Pvt. Ltd., which held that documentary evidence supporting share application money and allotment, coupled with the absence of revenue material demonstrating manipulation or direct/indirect benefit to the assessee, meant additions could not be sustained merely on the alleged connection of investors with Shri Pravin Kumar Jain. The Tribunal noted that the remand proceedings themselves led to the deletion of Rs. 20,00,000/-, indicating that Investigation Wing information alone was insufficient. The addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) was deleted. The legal grounds challenging the validity of reassessment were rendered academic and left undecided.

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 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 disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D(2)(ii) was correctly made. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had recorded satisfaction and that the computation under Rule 8D(2)(ii) is a standardized measure of indirect expenditure, irrespective of the source of funds.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the AO had mechanically relied on the Investigation Wing's report without establishing a nexus with the assessee's specific transactions. The reassessment was deemed bad in law.

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 noted that the previous order cancelling the assessee's registration had been set aside by the ITAT, with directions for fresh adjudication. Therefore, the basis for the CIT(E)'s rejection of the renewal application was flawed. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the applications were rejected on procedural grounds without examining the merits. Since fresh applications with complete details were filed, the matter should be examined on merits.

The Tribunal held that the applications were rejected on procedural grounds without examining the merits. Since fresh applications with complete details were filed, the matter should be re-examined on merits.

The Tribunal held that once the underlying addition forming the basis of the penalty was deleted by a co-ordinate bench, the penalty could not survive. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

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 Explanation 2 to Section 37(1) restricts CSR expenditure from business income, but does not prohibit deduction under Section 80G if conditions are met. The Assessing Officer had conducted due inquiry, and the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not justified.

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 selecting an incorrect clause in the electronic form was a curable procedural defect. The applications should not have been rejected on this technicality without examining the merits.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal to be withdrawn as the grievance of the appellant stood redressed by the subsequent order of the CIT(Exemption).

The Tribunal held that the foundational facts necessary to decide the genuineness of the transaction under section 68 were not determined by either the AO or the CIT(A). While the assessee produced corporate documents and bank statements, these did not conclusively prove the transaction's genuineness, nor did they prove it was non-genuine. Suspicion alone cannot substitute a finding based on verified facts. The Tribunal noted that answering the questions regarding the transaction's genuineness required investigation into third-party records, corporate filings, bank accounts, and the financial condition of both companies, which could not be done from the existing record. Therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,76,50,000/- was set aside, and Ground No. 1 was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to examine specific aspects, including the nature and source of funds, the identity and capacity of M/s Ratnakar Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., the commercial rationale for the premium, the investor's role, and the underlying investments. Interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was to be determined based on the final assessment, and penalty proceedings were considered premature. Ground No. 1 was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that a valid revised return substitutes the original return, and a fresh notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory for a valid assessment. The non-issuance of such a notice after a revised return is an incurable jurisdictional defect.

The Tribunal held that the conditions for invoking Section 69A were not met as the assessee was not found to be the owner of any unexplained money. The addition based on third-party documents and statements without cross-examination was deemed legally unsustainable.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, including an affidavit and liquor licenses, which required factual examination. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh consideration of the evidence.

The Tribunal held that a valid revised return substitutes the original return, and a fresh notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory for a valid assessment. The non-issuance of such a notice after a revised return is an incurable jurisdictional defect.

The Tribunal held that dismissing an appeal without deciding on merits, even for non-prosecution, violates natural justice. The CIT(A) failed to examine the material on record.

The Tribunal held that a valid revised return substitutes the original return, and a fresh notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory for a valid assessment. The non-issuance of such a notice after a revised return is an incurable jurisdictional defect.

The Tribunal held that a valid revised return substitutes the original return, and a fresh notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory for a valid assessment. The non-issuance of such a notice after a revised return is an incurable jurisdictional defect.

The Tribunal held that a valid revised return substitutes the original return, and a fresh notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory for a valid assessment. The non-issuance of such a notice after a revised return is an incurable jurisdictional defect.

The Tribunal held that a valid revised return substitutes the original return, and a fresh notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory for a valid assessment. The non-issuance of such a notice after a revised return is an incurable jurisdictional defect.

The Tribunal held that since more than three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, approval for the reassessment proceedings should have been obtained from the higher authority specified under section 151(ii), not the Principal Commissioner under section 151(i). Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the territorial jurisdiction of the Bench is determined by the location of the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order, not the assessee or the appellate authority. Therefore, the Mumbai Bench lacked territorial jurisdiction.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, finding it relevant for determining the nature of transactions and the applicability of Section 194C. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was to allow the assessee to file an application for admission of additional evidence and for proper examination of the documents.

The Tribunal held that the requirements for sustaining an addition under Section 68 were not established as the assessee provided primary evidence regarding the identity, financial capacity of the subscriber, source of funds, and genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal also found that the deletion of a protective addition under Section 69A was justified as the ownership of alleged cash margin in the assessee's hands was not established.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on all grounds, both technical and on merits. This restoration was subject to the assessees paying costs of ₹50,000/- each, to be deposited in the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.

The Tribunal held that the requirements for sustaining an addition under Section 68 were not established as the assessee provided primary evidence regarding the identity, financial capacity of the subscriber, source of funds, and genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal also found that the deletion of a protective addition under Section 69A was justified as the ownership of alleged cash margin in the assessee's hands was not established.

The Tribunal held that the requirements for sustaining an addition under Section 68 were not established as the assessee provided primary evidence regarding the identity, financial capacity of the subscriber, source of funds, and genuineness of the transaction. The Tribunal also found that the deletion of a protective addition under Section 69A was justified as the ownership of alleged cash margin in the assessee's hands was not established.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and decided to hear the matter on merits. The core issue revolves around whether Section 56(2)(x) applies to a transaction concluded in 2012, with registration in 2017, and the validity of the valuation adopted by the AO.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on all grounds, both technical and on merits. This restoration was subject to the assessees paying costs of ₹50,000/- each, to be deposited in the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on all grounds, both technical and on merits. This restoration was subject to the assessees paying costs of ₹50,000/- each, to be deposited in the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.