BharatTax.net

ITA 29/ASR/2025 · 17/3/2026

The tribunal set aside both the cancellation of 12A/12AB registration and the rejection of the 80G application, remanding the matters back to the CIT (Exemption) for de novo consideration. The tribunal directed the assessee to provide all necessary details and evidence of its charitable activities, and the CIT(E) to provide adequate opportunities for hearing.

ITA 625/ASR/2024 · 23/3/2026

The Tribunal found that the quantum appeal against the assessment order was still pending and its outcome, particularly on the jurisdictional issue, had a direct bearing on the penalty proceedings.

ITA 251/ASR/2025 · 6/4/2026

The Tribunal noted that the quantum additions forming the basis for the penalty were quashed. While the Revenue mentioned a pending High Court appeal against the quantum deletion, they failed to provide proof. The Tribunal held that deciding on penalty while the quantum is disputed is premature.

ITA 593/ASR/2025 · 23/3/2026

The Tribunal, following the decisions of the Hon'ble Sikkim High Court and other coordinate benches, held that the interest income earned by the assessee from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Tribunal found that the ratio laid down in various High Court and Supreme Court judgments cited by the Revenue were distinguishable from the present case.

ITA 622/ASR/2024 · 6/4/2026

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete additions related to unsecured loans, undisclosed sales, and sundry creditors, finding the assessee's explanations acceptable. However, the Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A) regarding the deletion of additions for unexplained cash deposits. The Tribunal observed a shortfall in explained cash availability compared to cash deposited in banks, indicating incomplete verification by the lower authorities.

ITA 229/RPR/2026 · 9/4/2026

The Tribunal held that an ex-parte order passed without substantial adjudication on merits violates principles of natural justice. Following precedent, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matters for de novo adjudication.

ITA 232/RPR/2026 · 9/4/2026

The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require the assessee to be heard. Since the CIT(Appeals) passed an ex-parte order without substantial adjudication on merits, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh adjudication, providing one final opportunity to the assessee.

ITA 711/RPR/2025 · 10/4/2026

The tribunal held that as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, employee contributions to PF and ESIC must be deposited within the due dates prescribed by the respective statutes to be eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Income Tax Act. Late deposit, even before the return filing due date, makes the amount deemed income in the hands of the employer.

ITA 710/RPR/2025 · 10/4/2026

The Tribunal held that due to the nature of the business (trading forest produce in remote areas) and the tribal recipients, cash payments are practically unavoidable. The Assessing Officer did not doubt the books of account or invoke Section 145(3). The addition was therefore considered arbitrary and lacking merit, especially since no independent inquiry was conducted by the lower authorities.

ITA 243/RPR/2026 · 15/4/2026

ITA 466/PUN/2026 · 17/4/2026

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-compliance despite opportunities. However, considering principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

ITA 2262/PUN/2024 · 21/4/2026

The Tribunal held that only the profit element in bogus purchases should be added, not the entire amount, as sales against such purchases were not doubted. The Tribunal directed the AO to restrict the addition to 10% of the total unproved purchases.

ITA 2263/PUN/2024 · 21/4/2026

The Tribunal held that only the profit element embedded in bogus purchases can be added to income, not the entire purchase value, especially when sales are not doubted. The Tribunal restricted the addition to 10% of the total unproved purchases, after considering prior additions.

ITA 446/PUN/2026 · 17/4/2026

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) rejected the application without providing an opportunity for a hearing on the specific issue of the incorrect code. The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to substantiate their claim.

ITA 2944/PUN/2025 · 21/4/2026

The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings were validly initiated under Section 153C as the assessee was not the primary person searched, but his premises were covered in relation to a search of another group. The addition for commission income was reduced, and the addition for cash seized was confirmed due to lack of evidence.

ITA 864/COCH/2025 · 28/11/2025

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) is duty-bound under Section 250(6) of the Act to dispose of an appeal on merits, even ex-parte, after framing points of determination. Citing a Bombay High Court decision, the ITAT remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for a de novo disposal on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

ITA 854/COCH/2025 · 28/11/2025

Following the Jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal held that interest earned by a co-operative society from deposits in banks and treasury is attributable to its main business. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for such interest income.

ITA 643/COCH/2025 · 5/12/2025

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to set aside the assessment. It directed the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to commence proceedings afresh from the stage of issuing notice under Section 148A(b), ensuring proper and verifiable service of all notices, granting adequate opportunity of hearing, conducting proper inquiries, and passing a speaking and reasoned order. All other legal grounds raised by the assessee were kept open for de novo adjudication.

ITA 836/COCH/2025 · 28/11/2025

The Tribunal observed that the appellant was not given an opportunity to rectify the defect of the inadvertently unsigned Form 10B. Consequently, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing the appellant with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

ITA 865/COCH/2025 · 28/11/2025

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erroneously dismissed the appeal in limine without discussing the reasonable cause for the 124-day delay in filing. The case was restored to the file of the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after affording the appellant a reasonable opportunity of hearing.