ITAT Ahmedabad Judgments — October 2026

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) was not maintainable. The judgment in Rajesh Jhaveri distinguished between a simple intimation under Section 143(1) and an intimation with adjustments. It was held that no appeal lies against a simple intimation. In the present case, the intimation dated 10.12.2020 was processed without any adjustment. Therefore, the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was not a valid appealable order under Section 246 of the Act. The Tribunal also referred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision in CIT vs. Prem Jain Motors (P.) Ltd., which stated that the right of appeal is a creature of statute and cannot be availed if no provision for appeal exists. Since the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was not maintainable, the grounds raised by the assessee, and consequently the present appeal before the Tribunal, were dismissed as not maintainable. The Tribunal noted that the issue of maintainability was not deliberated in the judgments relied upon by the assessee, and therefore, even if the assessee's claims on merits were agreed with, relief could not be granted.

The Tribunal noted that there was no effective representation of the Assessee either before the AO or before the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the AO had not recorded any finding that the cash purchases were not part of the Assessee's books of account. The Assessee claimed that the addition of Rs. 7,60,000 was business income already disclosed under PAN ABVPA8714F. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was of the view that the interests of justice would be served by giving the Assessee an opportunity to present his case before the Ld. AO. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the AO for passing a fresh assessment order after giving due opportunity to the Assessee. The Assessee was directed to submit all relevant materials and supporting documents and comply with notices without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 105 days in filing the appeal before it, accepting the assessee's submission that the delay was due to circumstances beyond his control, including issues with consultant-controlled communication and lack of effective knowledge. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not filed a return of income for the relevant assessment year and that the AO had arrived at the sale consideration and the assessee's share based on inquiries. However, the Tribunal found that the entire sale consideration could not be added without considering the cost of acquisition, date of acquisition, and details of improvements, supported by evidence, which are crucial for correct capital gains computation. Therefore, the Tribunal held that it was just and necessary to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for necessary verification and correct computation of capital gains. The assessee was directed to submit all relevant details without fail. The Departmental Representative had no objection to this course of action. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal should be dismissed. Regarding the addition of Rs. 92,12,400/-, the Tribunal found that the AO made the addition without conducting adequate inquiry into the details submitted by the assessee. The CIT(A) had rightly admitted additional documentary evidence under Rule 46A(1)(a) of the IT Rules, 1962, as the assessee had shown sufficient cause for not submitting them during assessment. Crucially, the AO did not utilize the opportunity provided during the remand proceedings to conduct necessary inquiries or verify the forwarded details. The Tribunal emphasized that substantial justice should prevail over technical considerations. Since the AO did not controvert the nature of the assessee's business activity or the fund transfers to booking agencies, and no material was brought on record to demonstrate unexplained sources of income, the addition could not be sustained. The cash deposits were demonstrably linked to client advances for ticket bookings. Therefore, the deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was upheld. Consequently, Revenue's grounds of appeal concerning the admission of additional evidence and the lack of a supplementary remand report were rendered infructuous. The assessee's cross-objection, which argued for the non-applicability of Section 68, was dismissed as infructuous because the CIT(A) had already deleted the entire addition, and the Tribunal had upheld this deletion, granting complete relief to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine without addressing the merits. While ordinarily, the matter would be restored to the CIT(A), the Tribunal observed that documents filed in the paper book had not been presented to the AO. The Tribunal reasoned that the AO would need to examine these documents for a remand report, and since the AO had not had an opportunity to examine the relevant documents for determining the assessee's income, it was deemed fit to set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh decision after the assessee submits all relevant documents and evidence. The assessee was directed to diligently pursue the matter with the AO. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not maintainable on the ground of low tax effect. It was noted that the tax effect involved was Rs. 27,30,000/-, which is below the monetary limit of Rs. 60 Lakhs prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 9/2024 dated 17.09.2024. The Revenue's representative could not provide any justification for filing the appeal under the exceptional clauses of the circular. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. As a result of the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal, the cross-objection filed by the assessee was also dismissed as infructuous. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the additions or the procedural issues raised by the assessee.

The Tribunal dismissed Ground Nos. 1 and 2 concerning the validity of reassessment proceedings and the notice under Section 148. It upheld the CIT(A)'s finding that the notice was issued based on tangible information regarding the political party's alleged accommodation-entry activities and that the requisite approval was obtained. Regarding Ground Nos. 3 and 4, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal against the disallowance of the Section 80GGC deduction. It relied on the findings of co-ordinate benches in identical cases, which had examined investigation material, bank trails, and the modus operandi of the recipient political party. The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in CIT v. Durga Prasad More and Sumati Dayal held that taxing authorities are not bound by documentary evidence alone and can look beyond the apparent. In this case, the investigation material, statements, bank trail, and the established modus operandi of the political party constituted a chain of circumstances demonstrating that the donation was an accommodation entry, not a genuine contribution. The Tribunal held that mere payment through banking channels and production of receipts could not override the evidence of the recipient party's involvement in providing accommodation entries. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s affirmation of the AO's disallowance was upheld.

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground raised by the assessee, holding that it goes to the root of the matter and can be adjudicated on the basis of facts already on record. The Tribunal noted that the return was filed during the financial year 2016-2017, ending on 31/03/2017. Therefore, as per the Proviso to Section 143(2) of the Act, the Assessing Officer had time until 30/09/2017 to issue the notice. However, the notice was served on 19/12/2017, which is beyond this period. Respectfully following the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT Vs. Panorama Builders (P.) Ltd., the Tribunal held that Section 292BB of the Act cannot enlarge the statutory period for issuance of a notice under Section 143(2). Consequently, the notice issued under Section 143(2) and the subsequent Assessment Order dated 15/12/2018 were quashed. The additional ground raised by the assessee was allowed, and other grounds were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish compliance with the statutory conditions for immunity from penalty under Section 271H(3) and also failed to demonstrate reasonable cause under Section 273B. The Tribunal noted that the revised TDS statement was filed only after the issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 201(1) and 201(1A), nearly three years and nine months after the original statement, which indicated a lack of bonafide intention. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation of an inadvertent error, coupled with subsequent correction, did not constitute a reasonable cause. However, considering the assessee's contention that the penalty was disproportionate and that a revised TDS return was eventually filed, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000 for each quarter. The grounds of appeal were dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s order was upheld subject to this reduction. The operative direction was for the AO to levy the reduced penalty.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned. It relied on the Supreme Court's decision in *Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Katiji* and *N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy*, emphasizing that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities and that the length of delay is immaterial if the explanation is bona fide. The Tribunal also referred to CBDT Circular No. 14 of 1955, which directs officers not to take advantage of an assessee's ignorance of their rights. The Tribunal found the assessee's case factually identical to *Harish Kumar vs. ITO* and other cited ITAT decisions where compensation under BSNL VRS-2019 was held exempt under Section 10(10B). The reliance by the revenue on *Goetze (India) Ltd V CIT* was deemed misplaced as appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims. Consequently, the compensation received by the assessee under BSNL VRS-2019 for both assessment years was held to be exempt under Section 10(10B). The Assessing Officer was directed to compute the taxable income accordingly and grant refunds. Ground No. 1 to 3 raised by the assessee were allowed, and Ground No. 4 was dismissed as infructuous. The Tribunal noted that the finding for AY 2020-2021 applied mutatis mutandis to AY 2021-2022.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the penalty levied under Section 270A was unsustainable. The Tribunal respectfully followed the judgment of its Coordinate Bench in Hiro Mulchand Tanwani v. ITO. The reasoning was that the assessee had disclosed the donation in the return of income and claimed deduction under Section 80GGC based on a belief of eligibility. The disallowance arose from the AO's dissatisfaction with the genuineness or eligibility, not from any misrepresentation or suppression of facts by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that merely not appealing the quantum addition for peace of mind or to avoid litigation does not amount to an admission of concealment or furnishing false particulars. The penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings. The Tribunal found no material to establish that the assessee furnished false evidence, suppressed facts, or made deliberate misrepresentation. Therefore, the penalty for misreporting under Section 270A was not legally tenable. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee fulfilled the substantive obligation under Section 270AA(1) for immunity from penalty. The penalty of Rs. 1,80,948 was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 1,817 days. The assessee's explanation for the delay, attributing it to non-receipt of communication from the CPC and ignorance of appeal filing procedures, was not considered satisfactory. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had continued to file returns for subsequent assessment years, which did not support the claim of complete ignorance. Since the assessee failed to establish a sufficient cause for the inordinate delay, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Ld. CIT(A)'s order. Consequently, the grounds relating to the merits of the intimation under Section 143(1) were not adjudicated. The ratio decidendi is that an inordinate delay in filing an appeal requires a cogent and satisfactory explanation, and procedural technicalities, when not adequately addressed by the assessee, can lead to dismissal without a decision on merits. The appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish compliance with the statutory conditions for immunity from penalty under Section 271H(3) and also failed to demonstrate reasonable cause under Section 273B. The Tribunal noted that the revised TDS statement was filed only after the issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 201(1) and 201(1A), nearly three years and nine months after the original statement, which indicated a lack of bonafide intention. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation of an inadvertent error, coupled with subsequent correction, did not constitute a reasonable cause. However, considering the assessee's contention that the penalty was disproportionate and that a revised TDS return was eventually filed, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000 for each quarter. The grounds of appeal were dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s order was upheld subject to this reduction. The operative direction was for the AO to levy the reduced penalty.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish that the impugned contribution represented a genuine donation eligible for deduction under Section 80GGC. The Tribunal noted that the investigation material, statements recorded under Section 132(4), bank trail analysis, and the established modus operandi of the recipient political party demonstrated that the donation was an accommodation entry. The Tribunal relied on the findings that the Rashtriya Samajwadi Party (Secular) was involved in a bogus donation scam, with its founder and party presidents admitting to such activities. The Tribunal also referred to the statements of Smt. Sandhya Singh and Shri Bishwajeet Singh, who confirmed the party's involvement in bogus donations and the return of funds after commission. The Tribunal concluded that mere payment through banking channels and production of donation receipts could not override the overwhelming evidence of the party's engagement in providing accommodation entries. Consequently, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order affirming the disallowance. The grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish compliance with the statutory conditions for immunity from penalty under Section 271H(3) and also failed to demonstrate reasonable cause under Section 273B. The Tribunal noted that the revised TDS statement was filed only after the issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 201(1) and 201(1A), nearly three years and nine months after the original statement, which indicated a lack of bonafide intention. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation of an inadvertent error, coupled with subsequent correction, did not constitute a reasonable cause. However, considering the assessee's contention that the penalty was disproportionate and that a revised TDS return was eventually filed, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000 for each quarter. The grounds of appeal were dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s order was upheld subject to this reduction. The operative direction was for the AO to levy the reduced penalty.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal should be allowed. It was noted that the assessee had consistently intended to be assessed under the new tax regime, as evidenced by his original return and the Tax Audit Report. The filing of Form No. 10-IEA was accepted as an inadvertent clerical error. The Tribunal found it significant that the assessee had approached the competent authority under section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay, which was granted, and subsequently filed a revised return opting for the new tax regime. Citing the Gujarat High Court's decisions in Mayur Foundation and S.R. Koshti, the Tribunal stated that appellate proceedings are a continuation of assessment proceedings and that the correct tax liability must be determined in accordance with law. Therefore, the subsequent condonation of delay and filing of the revised return were considered relevant for determining the correct tax liability. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the assessee's claim for taxation under section 115BAC was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was to be condoned, citing its own decisions in similar cases involving BSNL VRS-2019 compensation, which were supported by the Supreme Court judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Katiji and CBDT Circular No. 14 of 1955. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) could entertain a fresh claim in appellate proceedings, distinguishing the reliance on Goetze (India) Ltd. The Tribunal ruled that the compensation of INR 11,90,834/- (for AY 2020-21) and INR 54,02,026/- (for AY 2021-22) received under BSNL VRS-2019 was exempt under Section 10(10B). The Assessing Officer was directed to compute taxable income accordingly and grant refunds. Regarding the additional ground, the Tribunal directed the AO to grant exemption under Section 10(10AA) for leave encashment after verifying the assessee's status as a DoT employee absorbed in BSNL, following the Kerala High Court's decision in Sanchar Nigam Pensioners’ Welfare Association. Grounds 1 to 3 were allowed, Ground 4 was dismissed as infructuous, and Ground 5 was allowed for statistical purposes. The operative direction was to grant the exemption and consequential refund.

The Tribunal allowed Ground No. 1 of the assessee, quashing the notice dated 20/06/2023 issued under Section 148 of the Act for Assessment Year 2019-2020 as being bad in law. The Tribunal found that the notice was issued after the expiry of the three-year period from the end of the relevant assessment year. Even after excluding the time granted to the assessee for responding to notices under Section 148A(b) and the seven days specified in the 6th Proviso to Section 149(1), the notice under Section 148 fell outside the three-year period. Consequently, the provisions of Section 149(1)(b) of the Act were applicable. As the income escaping assessment was only INR 1,00,000/-, which is below the INR 50 Lakhs threshold stipulated in Section 149(1)(b), the notice could not be sustained. The Assessment Order dated 27/01/2025 was also quashed as a consequence. All other grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed as having become academic and infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the nature and extent of agricultural activities, ownership of land, agricultural produce, sale proceeds, and expenses incurred require proper verification with documentary evidence. It noted that the assessee furnished additional details during appellate proceedings, but the claim for agricultural expenses was disallowed by the CIT(A) partly because they were not separately reflected in Schedule EI of the ITR. The Tribunal found that the claim for agricultural expenses cannot be decided solely on the disclosure method in the return without examining supporting evidence and its nexus with agricultural activities. It also stated that the applicability of Section 68 and the sustainability of the addition thereunder must be examined in light of the facts and statutory provisions. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the file of the AO for fresh examination and adjudication. The AO is directed to examine the agricultural income, supporting evidence, sale proceeds, agricultural expenses, and the applicability of Section 68, considering the enhancement made by the CIT(A). The impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside. The assessee is directed to submit all relevant documents and explanations to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeals should be condoned. It relied on the Supreme Court's decision in *Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Katiji* and *N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurthy*, emphasizing that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities and that the length of delay is immaterial if the explanation is bona fide. The Tribunal also referred to CBDT Circular No. 14 of 1955, which directs officers not to take advantage of an assessee's ignorance of their rights. The Tribunal found the assessee's case factually identical to *Harish Kumar vs. ITO* and other cited ITAT decisions where compensation under BSNL VRS-2019 was held exempt under Section 10(10B). The reliance by the revenue on *Goetze (India) Ltd V CIT* was deemed misplaced as appellate authorities can entertain fresh claims. Consequently, the compensation received by the assessee under BSNL VRS-2019 for both assessment years was held to be exempt under Section 10(10B). The Assessing Officer was directed to compute the taxable income accordingly and grant refunds. Ground No. 1 to 3 raised by the assessee were allowed, and Ground No. 4 was dismissed as infructuous. The Tribunal noted that the finding for AY 2020-2021 applied mutatis mutandis to AY 2021-2022.

The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹12,03,033/- made under Section 56(2)(x) of the Act could not be sustained without examining the assessee's objection that the stamp duty value exceeded the fair market value. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had disputed the stamp duty valuation through written submissions, contending it was influenced by a State Government notification and did not represent the actual fair market value of agricultural lands. The third proviso to Section 56(2)(x) read with Section 50C(2) mandates a reference to the DVO when the stamp duty value is disputed on grounds that it exceeds the fair market value. The Tribunal found that the AO was required to consider the assessee's objection and the applicability of a DVO reference. Since no such reference was made, the matter was restored to the AO for making a reference to the DVO and adjudicating the issue afresh. The addition was set aside for fresh adjudication. Regarding penalty under Section 270A, the Tribunal held that it would be considered based on the outcome of the fresh assessment proceedings. The assessee's grounds relating to valuation dispute were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal. Regarding the validity of reopening under Section 147, the Tribunal found that the assessment was reopened based on information from the Investigation Wing concerning a search in the Swati Group. The Assessing Officer alleged accommodation entries against cash payments. The assessee provided documentary evidence, including loan confirmations, bank statements, and income-tax return acknowledgements of lenders, to support the claim of genuine unsecured loans received and repaid through banking channels. The Tribunal noted that the AO was required to establish accommodation entries with reliable corroborative material, which was lacking. The documentary evidence presented by the assessee supported their explanation of genuine unsecured loans. The Tribunal also found that the amounts were repaid even before the date of the search that led to the reopening. Consequently, the addition under Section 69A was not sustainable as the statutory conditions were not met. The grounds raised by the assessee on this issue were allowed, leading to the deletion of the addition. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish compliance with the statutory conditions for immunity from penalty under Section 271H(3) and also failed to demonstrate reasonable cause under Section 273B. The Tribunal noted that the revised TDS statement was filed only after the issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 201(1) and 201(1A), nearly three years and nine months after the original statement, which indicated a lack of bonafide intention. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation of an inadvertent error, coupled with subsequent correction, did not constitute a reasonable cause. However, considering the assessee's contention that the penalty was disproportionate and that a revised TDS return was eventually filed, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000 for each quarter. The grounds of appeal were dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s order was upheld subject to this reduction. The operative direction was for the AO to levy the reduced penalty.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish compliance with the statutory conditions for immunity from penalty under Section 271H(3) and also failed to demonstrate reasonable cause under Section 273B. The Tribunal noted that the revised TDS statement was filed only after the issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 201(1) and 201(1A), nearly three years and nine months after the original statement, which indicated a lack of bonafide intention. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation of an inadvertent error, coupled with subsequent correction, did not constitute a reasonable cause. However, considering the assessee's contention that the penalty was disproportionate and that a revised TDS return was eventually filed, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000 for each quarter. The grounds of appeal were dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s order was upheld subject to this reduction. The operative direction was for the AO to levy the reduced penalty.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, quashing the reassessment proceedings. The primary ground for allowing the appeal was the invalidity of the reassessment notice due to being barred by limitation. The Tribunal noted that the original notice under Section 148 was issued on 24.06.2021. After the information was supplied on 27.05.2022, and considering the statutory two-week period for reply and the remaining six days under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020 (TOLA), the limitation for issuing a fresh notice under Section 148 expired on 21.06.2022. However, the Assessing Officer issued the order under Section 148A(d) and the fresh notice under Section 148 on 28.07.2022, which was beyond the surviving period of limitation. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal and the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court's decision in Vinodkumar Rughnathbhai Koringa, which held that reassessment notices issued beyond the surviving period of limitation are invalid. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed, and all consequential proceedings were also set aside. The remaining grounds challenging the additions on merits were rendered academic and not adjudicated.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee was not effectively represented before the AO and the CIT(A). Applying the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. vs. Katiji and Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be best served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present their case before the AO. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to pass a fresh assessment order after providing the assessee with due opportunity. The assessee was directed to submit all relevant materials and supporting documents and comply with notices without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish compliance with the statutory conditions for immunity from penalty under Section 271H(3) and also failed to demonstrate reasonable cause under Section 273B. The Tribunal noted that the revised TDS statement was filed only after the issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 201(1) and 201(1A), nearly three years and nine months after the original statement, which indicated a lack of bonafide intention. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation of an inadvertent error, coupled with subsequent correction, did not constitute a reasonable cause. However, considering the assessee's contention that the penalty was disproportionate and that a revised TDS return was eventually filed, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000 for each quarter. The grounds of appeal were dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s order was upheld subject to this reduction. The operative direction was for the AO to levy the reduced penalty.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish compliance with the statutory conditions for immunity from penalty under Section 271H(3) and also failed to demonstrate reasonable cause under Section 273B. The Tribunal noted that the revised TDS statement was filed only after the issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 201(1) and 201(1A), nearly three years and nine months after the original statement, which indicated a lack of bonafide intention. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation of an inadvertent error, coupled with subsequent correction, did not constitute a reasonable cause. However, considering the assessee's contention that the penalty was disproportionate and that a revised TDS return was eventually filed, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000 for each quarter. The grounds of appeal were dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s order was upheld subject to this reduction. The operative direction was for the AO to levy the reduced penalty.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish compliance with the statutory conditions for immunity from penalty under Section 271H(3) and also failed to demonstrate reasonable cause under Section 273B. The Tribunal noted that the revised TDS statement was filed only after the issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 201(1) and 201(1A), nearly three years and nine months after the original statement, which indicated a lack of bonafide intention. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation of an inadvertent error, coupled with subsequent correction, did not constitute a reasonable cause. However, considering the assessee's contention that the penalty was disproportionate and that a revised TDS return was eventually filed, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000 for each quarter. The grounds of appeal were dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s order was upheld subject to this reduction. The operative direction was for the AO to levy the reduced penalty.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was to be condoned, citing its own decisions in similar cases involving BSNL VRS-2019 compensation, which were supported by the Supreme Court judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Katiji and CBDT Circular No. 14 of 1955. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) could entertain a fresh claim in appellate proceedings, distinguishing the reliance on Goetze (India) Ltd. The Tribunal ruled that the compensation of INR 11,90,834/- (for AY 2020-21) and INR 54,02,026/- (for AY 2021-22) received under BSNL VRS-2019 was exempt under Section 10(10B). The Assessing Officer was directed to compute taxable income accordingly and grant refunds. Regarding the additional ground, the Tribunal directed the AO to grant exemption under Section 10(10AA) for leave encashment after verifying the assessee's status as a DoT employee absorbed in BSNL, following the Kerala High Court's decision in Sanchar Nigam Pensioners’ Welfare Association. Grounds 1 to 3 were allowed, Ground 4 was dismissed as infructuous, and Ground 5 was allowed for statistical purposes. The operative direction was to grant the exemption and consequential refund.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of the weighted deduction of Rs. 17,50,000/- claimed by the assessee under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act is not sustainable in law and is hereby deleted. The Tribunal noted that it is an admitted position that at the time the donation was made by the assessee, Bioved Research Society held a valid approval under Section 35(1)(ii) of the Act, and the cancellation/withdrawal of approval occurred subsequently. The Tribunal respectfully followed the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in PCIT v. M/s Thakkar Govindbhai Ganpatlal HUF, which affirmed the deletion of an identical disallowance where the certificate enabling donation was cancelled long after the date of donation. The Tribunal also referred to coordinate bench decisions in Rashmiben Sharadbhai Patel v. DCIT and Inspiron Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT, which held that subsequent withdrawal of approval does not lead to disallowance if the donation was made to an organization with a valid approval at that time. The revenue failed to provide any material to distinguish these precedents. Accordingly, all grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish compliance with the statutory conditions for immunity from penalty under Section 271H(3) and also failed to demonstrate reasonable cause under Section 273B. The Tribunal noted that the revised TDS statement was filed only after the issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 201(1) and 201(1A), nearly three years and nine months after the original statement, which indicated a lack of bonafide intention. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation of an inadvertent error, coupled with subsequent correction, did not constitute a reasonable cause. However, considering the assessee's contention that the penalty was disproportionate and that a revised TDS return was eventually filed, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000 for each quarter. The grounds of appeal were dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s order was upheld subject to this reduction. The operative direction was for the AO to levy the reduced penalty.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish compliance with the statutory conditions for immunity from penalty under Section 271H(3) and also failed to demonstrate reasonable cause under Section 273B. The Tribunal noted that the revised TDS statement was filed only after the issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 201(1) and 201(1A), nearly three years and nine months after the original statement, which indicated a lack of bonafide intention. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation of an inadvertent error, coupled with subsequent correction, did not constitute a reasonable cause. However, considering the assessee's contention that the penalty was disproportionate and that a revised TDS return was eventually filed, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000 for each quarter. The grounds of appeal were dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s order was upheld subject to this reduction. The operative direction was for the AO to levy the reduced penalty.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish compliance with the statutory conditions for immunity from penalty under Section 271H(3) and also failed to demonstrate reasonable cause under Section 273B. The Tribunal noted that the revised TDS statement was filed only after the issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 201(1) and 201(1A), nearly three years and nine months after the original statement, which indicated a lack of bonafide intention. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation of an inadvertent error, coupled with subsequent correction, did not constitute a reasonable cause. However, considering the assessee's contention that the penalty was disproportionate and that a revised TDS return was eventually filed, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000 for each quarter. The grounds of appeal were dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s order was upheld subject to this reduction. The operative direction was for the AO to levy the reduced penalty.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish compliance with the statutory conditions for immunity from penalty under Section 271H(3) and also failed to demonstrate reasonable cause under Section 273B. The Tribunal noted that the revised TDS statement was filed only after the issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 201(1) and 201(1A), nearly three years and nine months after the original statement, which indicated a lack of bonafide intention. The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation of an inadvertent error, coupled with subsequent correction, did not constitute a reasonable cause. However, considering the assessee's contention that the penalty was disproportionate and that a revised TDS return was eventually filed, the Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 10,000 for each quarter. The grounds of appeal were dismissed, and the CIT(A)'s order was upheld subject to this reduction. The operative direction was for the AO to levy the reduced penalty.

The Tribunal dismissed both appeals of the assessee in limine for non-prosecution. The reasoning was based on the assessee's consistent non-compliance at various stages of the proceedings. The assessee was non-compliant before the Assessing Officer, completely non-compliant before the CIT(A) despite opportunities, and then filed appeals before the Tribunal with a delay. Subsequently, the assessee remained non-compliant and unresponsive to notices during the Tribunal's hearings. The Tribunal noted the strange circumstance of the assessee emerging for partial compliance before the Assessing Officer, then remaining completely non-compliant, and finally filing an appeal only to remain unresponsive. The Tribunal considered it proper to dismiss the appeals for non-prosecution, as attempts to serve notices were unsuccessful due to the assessee's unresponsiveness and failure to be found at the given address. No decision was made on the merits of the assessment orders.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel had requested to withdraw the appeal. The Ld. Senior Departmental Representative for the Revenue had no objection to this request. In light of the submission made by the appellant's advocate, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee as withdrawn. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. No issues were expressly left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of on procedural grounds.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 288 days in filing the appeal, subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 10,000/- in the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund within 60 days. The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by giving the assessee an opportunity to present its case before the AO, considering the ex-parte assessment and appellate orders due to the assessee's lack of effective representation. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the AO for passing a fresh assessment order after giving due opportunity to the assessee. The assessee was directed to submit all relevant materials and comply with notices without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remitted the matter back for de novo consideration. The Tribunal followed the reasoning of the co-ordinate bench in *Shri Sanskar Education And Cheritable Trust* (supra), which condoned a delay and directed the CIT(E) to pass a fresh order after granting an adequate opportunity of hearing. This decision was made in the interest of justice and fairness. The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the PM National Relief Fund within three weeks. The assessee was also directed to be compliant and diligently furnish all details without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A). The issue in controversy arose from the Assessing Officer treating Vega Industries (Middle East) FZC as a proprietary concern, whereas the assessee contended it was a body corporate. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's contention, relying on the Memorandum of Incorporation, Articles of Association, and Tax Residence Certificate from UAE authorities, which established Vega ME as a separate legal entity managed and controlled outside India. The CIT(A) correctly asserted that Section 2(17) of the Act defines a company to include any body corporate incorporated outside India. The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered in favour of the assessee by the decisions of the ITAT in the assessee's own case for preceding assessment years, including orders dated 14 August 2025 (A.Y. 2017-18 to 2021-22) and 01 October 2025 (A.Y. 2014-15). These decisions categorically established that Vega ME is duly incorporated under foreign laws and should be accepted as a company under Section 2(17), and treating it as a sole proprietorship due to 100% shareholding is unsustainable. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order and upheld it. The addition of Rs. 1,28,27,21,612/- was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Rs. 10,71,620 under Section 14A read with Rule 8D for normal income computation was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the AO had not alleged dissatisfaction with the correctness of the Rs. 17,75,560 determined by the assessee as expenditure relatable to earning exempt income. Since the assessee had not made any additional purchases of securities in the year and interest expenditure was not alleged to relate to earning exempt income, the Rs. 17,75,560 computed by the assessee as administrative expenses was considered fair and adequate. The Tribunal found no occasion to invoke Rule 8D in these circumstances, and thus deleted the addition of Rs. 10,71,620. Consequently, the assessee's grounds of appeal related to this issue were allowed. Regarding the disallowance for book profit computation under Section 115JB, the Tribunal followed the decisions of the Gujarat High Court in Pr.CIT vs. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. and Pr.CIT vs. Adani Agro Pvt. Ltd., which held that expenditure estimated under Rule 8D would not be added back to book profits under clause (f) of Explanation to Section 115JB. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 10,71,620 to the book profits under Section 115JB was also held to be erroneous and deleted. The assessee's grounds of appeal related to this issue were also allowed. The appeal was allowed in full.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of approximately 46 days in filing the appeals. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) rejected the applications for registration under section 12A and section 80G solely on the ground that no details were submitted in response to notices. The Tribunal found that only a single notice was issued for each application, and the orders were passed due to non-response. Considering it fair, the Tribunal restored the matters to the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing to submit all relevant details and then decide the applications in accordance with the law. The assessee was directed to appear diligently before the CIT(E) without seeking unnecessary adjournments and to submit all requested details. The Tribunal allowed both appeals for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 15,31,003/- under section 69A was not sustainable. Following the Gujarat High Court's decision in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd., the Tribunal found that the cash was duly recorded in the assessee's books and explained as receipts from regular activities. The mere unusual quantum or pattern of accumulation, without independent material from the revenue, did not justify the addition. Ground Nos. 1 and 1.1 were allowed. Regarding the disallowance of interest of Rs. 14,00,000/- and TDS of Rs. 1,40,000/-, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) made this disallowance as an enhancement of assessed income without providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to show cause, which is mandatory. Therefore, the disallowance was unsustainable. Ground No. 2 was allowed. On the addition of Rs. 20,14,250/- for advances written off, the Tribunal held that the advances were capital in nature, made towards construction of buildings. The write-off of a capital advance, even if irrecoverable, does not convert it into an allowable revenue expenditure. Thus, the disallowance was sustained. Ground No. 3 was dismissed. Finally, concerning the applicability of the enhanced rate under section 115BBE, the Tribunal held that for transactions prior to 01-04-2017, the enhanced rate of 60% is not applicable, following the Madras High Court's decision in S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. v. ACIT. Ground No. 4 was allowed. The appeal was partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 is valid and declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order on this issue. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s observation that the necessary annexures and approval documents were provided to the assessee, aligning with the Supreme Court's decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO. The Tribunal also found that the proviso to Section 148A and Explanation 2 to Section 148 waived the requirement for prior inquiry and order under Section 148A(d) in search cases, and the search material formed the jurisdictional basis. The omission of the approval date was considered a curable procedural defect under Section 292B. Regarding the addition of Rs. 1,07,108/- for late deposit of employee's contribution to PF/ESI, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating the matter is settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the delay in deposit is not controverted. However, concerning the disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 41,840/-, the Tribunal directed its deletion. The Tribunal observed that the amount was paid to a carpenter, and the ledger account duly supported the payments, implying that the assessee had discharged its evidentiary burden at the appellate stage, which was not adequately considered by the AO. Consequently, the appeal for AY 2014-15 was partly allowed, and the appeal for AY 2013-14 was dismissed.

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and the material on record. The primary issue was whether the addition of Rs. 4,21,014/- on account of LTA was justified and whether the tax paid or adjusted by SBI had been accounted for. The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed LTA exemption based on SBI's Form No. 16. Subsequently, SBI paid 50% of the TDS shortfall with interest and sought adjustment for the balance against refunds. The Tribunal acknowledged that any tax actually deducted and deposited by SBI in respect of the LTA received by the assessee must be accounted for when determining the assessee's tax liability. Since tax had been paid by the employer, the Tribunal held that no addition was called for in this case. The first ground of appeal was not pressed and was dismissed. The appeal was partly allowed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 is valid and declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order on this issue. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s observation that the necessary annexures and approval documents were provided to the assessee, aligning with the Supreme Court's decision in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. ITO. The Tribunal also found that the proviso to Section 148A and Explanation 2 to Section 148 waived the requirement for prior inquiry and order under Section 148A(d) in search cases, and the search material formed the jurisdictional basis. The omission of the approval date was considered a curable procedural defect under Section 292B. Regarding the addition of Rs. 1,07,108/- for late deposit of employee's contribution to PF/ESI, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating the matter is settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the delay in deposit is not controverted. However, concerning the disallowance of depreciation of Rs. 41,840/-, the Tribunal directed its deletion. The Tribunal observed that the amount was paid to a carpenter, and the ledger account duly supported the payments, implying that the assessee had discharged its evidentiary burden at the appellate stage, which was not adequately considered by the AO. Consequently, the appeal for AY 2014-15 was partly allowed, and the appeal for AY 2013-14 was dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of approximately 46 days in filing the appeals. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) rejected the applications for registration under section 12A and section 80G solely on the ground that no details were submitted in response to notices. The Tribunal found that only a single notice was issued for each application, and the orders were passed due to non-response. Considering it fair, the Tribunal restored the matters to the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with an opportunity of hearing to submit all relevant details and then decide the applications in accordance with the law. The assessee was directed to appear diligently before the CIT(E) without seeking unnecessary adjournments and to submit all requested details. The Tribunal allowed both appeals for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271D for misreporting of income is not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that both parties fairly submitted that the issue was covered by a previous order of the Tribunal in the case of a co-owner, Ashok Ramanlal Tamboli (ITA No.344/Ahd/2026 dated 03.08.2026). In that order, the Tribunal had deleted the penalty under Section 271D in identical facts and circumstances, considering the urgent need for funds, the purchaser's insistence on cash payment, the disclosure of the cash amount in the updated return, and the fact that penalty proceedings were dropped for a co-sharer. The Tribunal found no contrary decision or distinguishing facts in the present case. Therefore, the penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted. The issue regarding the opportunity of hearing was not explicitly decided but was subsumed within the overall allowance of the appeal based on the merits of the penalty deletion.

The Tribunal dismissed both appeals of the assessee in limine for non-prosecution. The reasoning was based on the assessee's consistent non-compliance at various stages of the proceedings. The assessee was non-compliant before the Assessing Officer, completely non-compliant before the CIT(A) despite opportunities, and then filed appeals before the Tribunal with a delay. Subsequently, the assessee remained non-compliant and unresponsive to notices during the Tribunal's hearings. The Tribunal noted the strange circumstance of the assessee emerging for partial compliance before the Assessing Officer, then remaining completely non-compliant, and finally filing an appeal only to remain unresponsive. The Tribunal considered it proper to dismiss the appeals for non-prosecution, as attempts to serve notices were unsuccessful due to the assessee's unresponsiveness and failure to be found at the given address. No decision was made on the merits of the assessment orders.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under section 270A of the Act is not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that section 270A(2)(b) applies when no return is furnished or the return is furnished for the first time under section 148. However, section 270A(6) provides an exception where the assessee offers an explanation, and the tax authorities are satisfied that the explanation is bonafide and all material facts were disclosed. In this case, the assessee filed a return under section 148, declared income, paid self-assessment tax of Rs. 1,28,35,340/-, and the AO accepted the returned income without additions. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for not filing the original return to be bonafide, considering his illiteracy and belief regarding agricultural income, and his subsequent conduct of disclosing income and paying taxes. Therefore, the case was covered under the exception in section 270A(6). Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the AO imposed the penalty at 200% of the tax on the ground of misreporting under section 270A(8) read with section 270A(1), but failed to specify which clause of section 270A(9) (defining misreporting) was attracted. Citing decisions of Coordinate Benches in Suresh Rao v. ITO and Ishit Kamleshbhai Sheth v. ITO, where penalty under section 270A was deleted when a return filed under section 148 was accepted without variation, the Tribunal concluded that no penalty for misreporting was leviable. The penalty of Rs. 1,36,51,648/- was directed to be deleted. The appeal was allowed.