ITAT Agra Judgments — June 2025

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide justification for the substantial increase in share price within a short span. The court noted that the transaction details, including the merger of Fidelo Power and Infrastructure Limited (FPIL) with YICL and subsequent share sales, did not establish the genuineness of the LTCG. The Tribunal upheld the AO's addition of Rs. 80,17,339 as income under section 68 and confirmed the disallowance of LTCG.

The Tribunal found that the loan transactions were not properly examined by the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer to consider the evidence filed by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have first adjudicated the jurisdictional issues raised by the assessee concerning the validity of the reassessment proceedings, especially the notice issued to a deceased person and beyond the time limit, before setting aside the order and remanding the matter. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed it to pass a speaking order on the legal issues.

The Tribunal found that the land was agricultural on 01.04.1981, not an urban or industrial plot as claimed by the assessee, and therefore, the DVO's valuation should be used for indexation. The claim for removal of encumbrance expenses was set aside for fresh verification by the AO.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause and no malafide intention on the part of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the revised return filed by the assessee was invalid as it was filed after the due date and after the selection of the case for scrutiny. Grounds related to valuation report and cash deposits were also addressed.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation was supported by bank statements and an affidavit from his father. The cash deposits represented sales from the petrol pump, and the funds were utilized for business expenses. The Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(A) had not properly verified these facts.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and decided to hear the appeal on merits. The core issue is whether compensation received for compulsory land acquisition under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, is taxable as capital gain, especially when the land is not agricultural.

The Tribunal, considering that the assessee's wife's case was set aside to the AO for verification of sources, decided to provide a similar opportunity to the assessee. The case was remanded to the AO for fresh examination of the sources of investment.

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, as it had already granted relief by allowing expenses against the CPC's action of taxing the entire gross receipts. Therefore, the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the land was agricultural on 01.04.1981, not an urban or industrial plot as claimed by the assessee, and therefore, the DVO's valuation should be used for indexation. The claim for removal of encumbrance expenses was set aside for fresh verification by the AO.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide evidence that the disallowed amount included employer contributions. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal found no infirmity in the lower authorities' orders.

The Tribunal restricted the addition to Rs. 10,00,000, considering the opening cash balance and withdrawals. It also held that Section 115BBE is not applicable for the assessment year under appeal, following a Madras High Court judgment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its burden by providing confirmations, PAN, and bank statements of the loan creditors. The Tribunal also noted that the amendment to Section 68 regarding explaining the 'source of source' was not applicable for the assessment year in question and that additions cannot be made solely on suspicion without concrete evidence.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposited in SBN was out of past savings and receipts from customers, supported by statements of affairs showing significant cash in hand in preceding years. The Tribunal deleted the addition made under Section 69A.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It partly allowed the appeal by restricting the addition on account of cash deposits to Rs. 50,000 and deleted the rest, while remanding the issue of agricultural income to the AO for fresh examination. The Tribunal also held that Section 115BBE is not applicable for the assessment year 2017-18.

The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order, finding that the assessment order was passed without proper inquiries, making it erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The assessee did not controvert these observations.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee intentionally applied for another PAN, which was allotted and used to open a bank account. This account and its transactions were not disclosed in the regular books of accounts or filed returns. The assessee's claim of a duplicate PAN and a separate branch was raised only during reassessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is a charitable institution engaged in imparting education, and its gross receipts were below the Rs. 1 Crore threshold for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad). The Tribunal found that claiming exemption under the wrong section due to an inadvertent mistake should not deprive the assessee of its legal claim.

The Tribunal held that the assessee demonstrated that interest-free funds were available for personal withdrawals, thus deleting the disallowance of interest. Regarding the demonetization deposit, considering the CBDT press release and the assessee's explanation of accumulated 'stridhan' and rental income, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal held that it is the duty of the CIT(A) to decide the legal and jurisdictional issues first before proceeding to decide the merits of the additions. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication of the jurisdictional grounds.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) denied registration without giving a positive finding that the assessee had not carried out its activities as per the trust's objects, but rather due to a lack of sufficient evidence. The Tribunal found that some details were submitted, which needed to be examined afresh by the CIT(E). Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh order.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission that notices were sent to an outdated address. Finding merit in this explanation, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) acted within his powers to set aside the assessment and remand it for fresh assessment, upholding the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission that notices were sent to an outdated address. Finding merit in this explanation, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) acted within his powers to set aside the assessment and remand it for fresh assessment, upholding the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the property consisting of four shops and a room was predominantly commercial and not a residential house for Section 54 exemption. However, it directed the Assessing Officer to recompute capital gains considering only the assessee's 50% share of the sale consideration, as the property was jointly owned.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) denied registration without giving a positive finding that the assessee had not carried out its activities as per the trust's objects, but rather due to a lack of sufficient evidence. The Tribunal found that some details were submitted, which needed to be examined afresh by the CIT(E). Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) had not properly adjudicated the additional grounds raised by the assessee, failing to provide specific reasons for their disposal. The CIT(Appeals) was expected to provide a speaking and reasoned order on all grounds raised.

The Tribunal held that following the decision of coordinate benches and considering the revised limit of Rs. 25,00,000/- under CBDT Notification No. 31/2023 dated 24.05.2023, the assessee is eligible for the claim of exemption on leave encashment.

The Tribunal held that following the decision of coordinate benches and considering the revised limit of Rs. 25,00,000/- under CBDT Notification No. 31/2023 dated 24.05.2023, the assessee is eligible for the claim of exemption on leave encashment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the assessee's failure to respond to notices, the Tribunal noted that the first appellate authority did not pass the order on merits and also failed to state the reasons for the decision as required by law. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 459 days, finding sufficient cause due to the non-service of notices. The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh adjudication on merits, emphasizing the need to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and to adhere to principles of natural justice.

The Learned DR had no objection to the withdrawal request. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal due to a defect in depositing the appeal fee.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) order lacked proper reasoning and did not adhere to the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not pass the ex parte order on merits and, in the interest of justice, decided to afford a last opportunity to the assessee. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeal before the CIT(Appeals) by holding that there was sufficient cause. The impugned order of the CIT(Appeals) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee was unresponsive, the CIT(Appeals) had not adjudicated the appeal on merits as required. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), taking judicial notice of the COVID-19 pandemic period. The Tribunal restored the matters to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, emphasizing the principle of advancing the cause of justice.

The Tribunal found that the appeal was only delayed by one or two days based on the service date. The delay was condoned in the interest of justice, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits.

The CIT(A) confirmed the addition on account of cash deposits but reversed the AO's conclusion regarding returned income as unexplained money. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had issued multiple notices to the assessee who failed to respond or sought adjournment, leading to a dismissal of the appeal. However, the CIT(A) was expected to provide points for determination and reasons for the decision.

The Tribunal noted that a substantial part of the delay overlapped with the period of the global COVID-19 pandemic, for which the Supreme Court had directed exclusion of time for limitation purposes. The Tribunal also considered the affidavit filed by the assessee, deeming it to be a bonafide and sufficient cause. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing both the appeal before the ITAT and the first appeal before the CIT(Appeals), finding sufficient cause. The matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits.

The ITAT condoned the delay and set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(Appeals) as it was not passed on merits and violated principles of natural justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), taking judicial notice of the COVID-19 pandemic period. The Tribunal restored the matters to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, emphasizing the principle of advancing the cause of justice.

The Tribunal noted that a substantial part of the delay overlapped with the period of the global COVID-19 pandemic, for which the Supreme Court had directed exclusion of time for limitation purposes. The Tribunal also considered the affidavit filed by the assessee, deeming it to be a bonafide and sufficient cause. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay.