BharatTax.net

ITA 135/ALLD/2025 · 21/11/2025

The Tribunal, after considering the assessee's application for condonation of delay and the precedents from the Supreme Court, found that the assessee failed to demonstrate 'sufficient cause' for the inordinate delay of 824 days. The reasons provided were vague, uncorroborated, and showed a lack of bona fide, diligence, and vigilance on the part of the assessee. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was dismissed, leading to the dismissal of the appeal itself on the ground of limitation.

ITA 82/ALLD/2025 · 29/1/2026

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the impugned appellate order in a summary manner without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and without adhering to the provisions of section 250(6) of the I. T. Act. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

ITA 4/ALLD/2019 · 10/3/2026

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer (AO) and the earlier demand was vacated following an ITAT order, the penalty for non-payment of that demand was not maintainable. Therefore, the penalty sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.

ITA 81/ALLD/2025 · 29/1/2026

The CIT(A) passed the appellate order without providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and without passing a speaking order. The order was not in adherence to Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act.

ITA 37/ALLD/2025 · 21/11/2025

The Tribunal noted that both lower authorities' orders were ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance. Considering the facts, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. Consequently, it set aside the order of the Addl/JCIT(A) and restored the file to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with a caution to the assessee for full compliance.

ITA 688/IND/2025 · 10/4/2026

The Tribunal noted that the AO made additions for squared-up loans and non-squared-up loans. Regarding squared-up loans, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, giving the assessee an opportunity to present evidence. For non-squared-up loans, the Tribunal deleted the addition, finding that the assessee had discharged its onus and the AO's adverse inferences were not based on cogent material.

ITA 347/IND/2025 · 10/4/2026

The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and did not meet the requirements of Section 250(6). Considering the principle of natural justice and the assessee's limited understanding due to being from a smaller place, the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

ITA 768/IND/2025 · 10/4/2026

The Tribunal held that the impugned order of the CIT(A) was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice because the assessee was not provided with the AO's report which was relied upon for passing the order.

ITA 665/IND/2025 · 10/4/2026

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) should have conducted proper inquiries and verification regarding loan transactions based on affidavits, examining identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of donors. The CIT(A) also failed to do this. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

ITA 407/IND/2024 · 10/4/2026

The Tribunal held that provision for standard assets made by a banking company as per RBI guidelines is allowable as a deduction under Section 36(1)(viia). The Tribunal followed the decision of the co-ordinate bench and the Karnataka High Court, taking a view in favour of the assessee on this issue. However, the Tribunal noted the necessity to verify if the claim was within the permissible limit prescribed in Section 36(1)(viia) and remanded the issue back to the AO for verification of the limit.

ITA 73/DEL/2025 · 10/4/2026

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the genuineness of the purchases, including invoices, loan agreements, bank statements, and insurance policies. The Assessing Officer failed to conduct independent inquiries. Therefore, the additions treating the purchases as bogus were deleted.

ITA 5317/DEL/2024 · 10/4/2026

The Tribunal restored both issues to the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO was directed to examine the assessee's contentions regarding the typographical error in employee's contribution to PF/ESI, the timely payment of such contribution, and the addition of deferred tax under MAT provisions.

ITA 4591/DEL/2025 · 10/4/2026

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to provide details on how the cash figures were bifurcated and that the claim of the assessee regarding the cash belonging to group companies, especially M/s Goyal M G Gases (P.) Ltd., could not be denied without contrary material. Since no addition was made in the hands of M/s Goyal M G Gases (P.) Ltd. despite its substantial cash in hand, the addition made in the assessee's hands was deleted.

ITA 2883/DEL/2025 · 10/4/2026

The Tribunal held that no evidence of commission payment was found, and the sale deeds alone did not prove brokerage. Regarding the cash expenditure, the Tribunal noted that the expenses were owned up by another individual, Shri Subhash Chaudhary, and that the Settlement Commission had also ruled no further addition was required in this regard. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were not sustainable.

ITA-795/2004 · 10/4/2026

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order, holding that the Supreme Court judgments in Bokaro Steel Ltd. and Karnal Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. were not applicable to the appellant's case. It concluded that the interest received was wrongly adjusted against project expenses and was liable to be taxed separately as 'income from other sources'.

ITA/74/2022 · 11/3/2025

ITA/37/2023 · 8/1/2026

ITA/9/2024 · 15/4/2024

ITA/57/2023 · 8/1/2026

ITA/32/2024 · 18/12/2024