ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — February 2026

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the assessee's genuine cause and the potential for gross injustice if the appeals were not heard on merits. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The ITAT observed that the 17-day delay was of very short duration and the CIT(A)'s refusal to condone it resulted in a denial of adjudication on merits, contrary to the principle of liberally construing limitation provisions to advance substantial justice. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for a de-novo consideration, including the validity of reassessment proceedings and the addition on merits, after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing Form No. 10AB, finding it to be a bona fide mistake by a newly constituted trust. It noted that the CIT(Exemptions) had not doubted the charitable nature of the trust's activities and that similar delays had been condoned in previous judgments. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Exemptions)'s order and remanded the matter for de-novo consideration on merits.

The Tribunal observed that the gross interest income as per Form 26AS was duly recorded in the books and the net interest income was shown in the Profit & Loss account. It held that the revenue failed to consider the netting of interest, and therefore, no addition was warranted.

The Tribunal ruled that an assessment order passed against a deceased person, when the AO had knowledge of their demise, is a nullity based on various higher authorities' pronouncements. Therefore, all consequential additions made under such a nullified assessment order were deemed invalid and ordered to be deleted.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the file of the AO for verification. The AO is directed to examine if the assessee has already offered the interest income for taxation after deducting admissible expenditure, ensuring no double addition is made if the claim is found admissible.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not involved in any stock manipulation, and the purchase and sale of shares were genuine. Given the 28-month holding period, the profits earned by the assessee were considered regular business profits, not bogus. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that no addition was called for.

The ITAT affirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion, concluding that the quantity discrepancy was a typographical error substantiated by the assessee's records. It also accepted the assessee's valuation of damaged closing stock at market price, which was lower than cost, consistent with accounting principles. The tribunal further noted that the AO's addition for variation in stock was based on a misunderstanding of its nature.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's submission that her cash deposits originated from sales of her small business, with total sales of Rs. 10.46 lakhs, and her income under Section 44AD was below the taxable limit. Given these facts, the Tribunal concluded that no additions were warranted for either the household expenditure or the cash deposits.

The Tribunal, relying on the *Biswas Manik* precedent, held that the employer's contribution to LIC for a deferred annuity is not taxable as a perquisite in the year of contribution if the employee has no vested right and the annuity commences later, as this would lead to impermissible double taxation. The addition made by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the bona fide ignorance of the assessee regarding the legal provisions for exemption. Following the precedent set by the Chandigarh ITAT, it held that the BSNL VRS 2019 compensation is exempt under Section 10(10B) and, consequently, the assessee is eligible for a refund of the TDS.

The Tribunal upheld the Addl. CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee's explanation for the inordinate delay was not bonafide and indicated gross negligence. Relying on Supreme Court guidelines, the Tribunal concluded that such a substantial delay could not be condoned merely by blaming the counsel, especially when the assessee failed to monitor the appeal status over several years.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to furnish documents and explain delays. While the appeal was initially dismissed in limine, the counsel requested another chance. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, instructing the assessee to submit all relevant documents and comply with notices without further adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove its activities were charitable, particularly regarding nominal charges and government aid. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for de-novo consideration with an opportunity for the assessee to submit supporting documents.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted that the assessee inadvertently offered the VRS compensation to tax. Relying on the precedent set by the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the Harish Kumar case, which held similar BSNL VRS-2019 compensation exempt under Section 10(10B), the Tribunal concluded that the assessee was eligible for the exemption and a refund of TDS. The Tribunal implicitly overturned the procedural dismissal by the CIT(A) and granted the exemption on merits.

For AY 2020-21, the Tribunal remanded the entire matter to the AO for re-assessment, citing the principle of natural justice and the assessee's voluminous evidence not considered. For AY 2022-23, the Tribunal remanded the section 40(a)(ia) disallowance to the AO for fresh consideration and completely deleted the disallowance of Rs. 6,05,083/- for festival expenses.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's genuine reason for non-compliance. It remanded both cases to the Assessing Officer for proper verification of evidences, adjudication as per the Income Tax Act, and to provide the assessee with a fair opportunity of hearing, with a directive for the assessee to fully cooperate.

The Tribunal found that the issue of bogus LTCG and the related disallowance of purchase cost are interlinked. To ensure justice and avoid multiple litigations, it directed the Ld. CIT(A) to decide both issues collectively in the quantum appeal, which had already been remitted to the CIT(A). The Pr.CIT's order was modified to this extent.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The assessee is directed to furnish all relevant documents and comply with notices without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

For AY 2020-21, the Tribunal remanded the entire matter to the AO for re-assessment, citing the principle of natural justice and the assessee's voluminous evidence not considered. For AY 2022-23, the Tribunal remanded the section 40(a)(ia) disallowance to the AO for fresh consideration and completely deleted the disallowance of Rs. 6,05,083/- for festival expenses.

The Tribunal observed that both the reassessment and appellate orders were ex-parte and did not consider evidence like bank statements and a Karnataka Bank Certificate regarding non-issuance of specific cheques. Emphasizing the principle of Natural Justice, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to grant the assessee a fresh opportunity for hearing and decide the case on merits.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee was given sufficient opportunities but failed to comply before the lower authorities. However, upon the assessee's request for a de-novo adjudication and an offer to pay Rs. 500/- to PMNRF, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to submit all relevant documents and comply diligently with notices.

The Tribunal noted the minor delay was caused by Covid-19 and, citing Supreme Court and Madhya Pradesh High Court judgments, held that the benefit of extended limitation for filing Form 10 and 10B was available. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the AO to pass a fresh assessment order by condoning the minor delay.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had clearly proved the genuineness of the cash loans, which were availed from relatives and friends for her son's education loan, and were promptly repaid after the bank loan was sanctioned. Citing Section 273B and judicial precedents, the Tribunal ruled that such bona fide transactions, not aimed at tax evasion, constitute a 'reasonable cause' for the cash dealings. Therefore, the penalties levied under Sections 271D and 271E were cancelled.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 80 days in filing the appeal. After considering the submissions, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be given a proper opportunity of hearing and directed to be vigilant in responding to the AO's notices.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration in the interest of justice, subject to payment of costs. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were also set aside for fresh consideration.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) noted that the assessee inadvertently offered the VRS compensation to tax. Relying on the precedent set by the ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the Harish Kumar case, which held similar BSNL VRS-2019 compensation exempt under Section 10(10B), the Tribunal concluded that the assessee was eligible for the exemption and a refund of TDS. The Tribunal implicitly overturned the procedural dismissal by the CIT(A) and granted the exemption on merits.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's genuine reason for non-compliance. It remanded both cases to the Assessing Officer for proper verification of evidences, adjudication as per the Income Tax Act, and to provide the assessee with a fair opportunity of hearing, with a directive for the assessee to fully cooperate.

The ITAT noted the assessee's plea that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte due to notices being sent to an incorrect email ID. Acknowledging the assessee's non-compliance but also the substantial issues involved (capital gains, section 69A, section 54F, foreign tax credit), the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for de-novo consideration on merits. The assessee was directed to cooperate fully and pay a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration in the interest of justice, subject to payment of costs. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were also set aside for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration in the interest of justice, subject to payment of costs. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were also set aside for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration in the interest of justice, subject to payment of costs. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were also set aside for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration in the interest of justice, subject to payment of costs. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were also set aside for de-novo consideration.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove its activities were charitable, particularly regarding nominal charges and government aid. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for de-novo consideration with an opportunity for the assessee to submit supporting documents.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) who deleted the addition made by the AO. The CIT(A) considered additional evidence submitted by the assessee, including a cancellation agreement, and a remand report from the AO which confirmed the documentary evidence supported the assessee's claim.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had clearly proved the genuineness of the cash loans, which were availed from relatives and friends for her son's education loan, and were promptly repaid after the bank loan was sanctioned. Citing Section 273B and judicial precedents, the Tribunal ruled that such bona fide transactions, not aimed at tax evasion, constitute a 'reasonable cause' for the cash dealings. Therefore, the penalties levied under Sections 271D and 271E were cancelled.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order, restoring the matter for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(E) is directed to reconsider the application on its merits, issue a reasoned order, and provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that allowing parallel proceedings to continue independently would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and potential inconsistencies. Therefore, the impugned order and the consequential assessment order were set aside.

The Tribunal observed that the rejection was primarily due to the assessee's non-response to notices, despite the assessee claiming sufficient cause and asserting that relevant material was already available on record. Emphasizing the principles of natural justice and citing Supreme Court precedents (Andaman Timber Industries and Tin Box Company), the Tribunal held that denying an opportunity to be heard vitiates proceedings. Therefore, the impugned order by the CIT (Exemptions) was set aside, and the matter was restored for de novo consideration, with directions to afford the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and to consider all furnished documents and explanations.

The Tribunal held that once a transaction occurs through banking channels and the flow of funds is established, the assessee cannot be asked to prove the 'source of the source.' It further noted that the repayment of the loan through banking channels, accepted by the department, strongly corroborated the genuineness and creditor's capacity, a principle upheld by various courts. The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 and directed the deletion of the Rs. 60 lakh addition.

The Tribunal held that the addition was erroneously made as there was no evidence to establish the assessee's ownership of the money or receipt of the alleged loan. The lower authorities confirmed the addition mechanically without independent evaluation.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the disallowance of donation deduction and the denial of Section 80-IA deductions for the effluent treatment plant and steam generation unit. However, the issue of export incentives being treated as capital receipts was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed all appeals filed by the Revenue, confirming the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the upward adjustment to royalty payments. The Tribunal held that TNMM was the most appropriate method for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of royalty payments to AEs, consistent with its own previous judgments for earlier assessment years and the TPO's admission in the remand report for the current years.

The tribunal observed that reassessment proceedings were completed in haste and that the assessee consistently argued about the non-issuance of notice under section 143(2) and claimed to have supporting material. However, the assessee also exhibited a non-cooperative attitude. To ensure a fair opportunity, the tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the entire matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to cooperate fully.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed all appeals filed by the Revenue, confirming the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the upward adjustment to royalty payments. The Tribunal held that TNMM was the most appropriate method for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of royalty payments to AEs, consistent with its own previous judgments for earlier assessment years and the TPO's admission in the remand report for the current years.

The Tribunal ruled that the PCIT's order passed under Section 263 against Kamuthi Solar Power Limited was void ab initio because the company had already ceased to exist due to amalgamation before the order was issued. The Tribunal noted that this fact was known to the PCIT, and relied on Supreme Court precedents establishing that orders against non-existent entities are substantively illegal.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed all appeals filed by the Revenue, confirming the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the upward adjustment to royalty payments. The Tribunal held that TNMM was the most appropriate method for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of royalty payments to AEs, consistent with its own previous judgments for earlier assessment years and the TPO's admission in the remand report for the current years.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed all appeals filed by the Revenue, confirming the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the upward adjustment to royalty payments. The Tribunal held that TNMM was the most appropriate method for determining the Arm's Length Price (ALP) of royalty payments to AEs, consistent with its own previous judgments for earlier assessment years and the TPO's admission in the remand report for the current years.

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, observing that the assessee merely acted as an intermediary and had provided comprehensive details regarding the identity of depositors, purpose of deposits, and genuineness of transactions. As the Assessing Officer did not dispute these facts, and the receipts were duly recorded, the onus under Section 68 of the Act was discharged, concluding that accepting SBNs in this context could not be treated as unexplained income.

The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 1,00,000, accepting the assessee's explanation that the cash deposit for the flat advance was sourced from prior NRE account withdrawals. It also deleted the addition of Rs. 4,32,280 for stamp duty and registration charges, as the assessee provided a bank challan and a notarized affidavit from the developer confirming these payments were part of the flat purchase consideration.