Loading ITAT cases…
259 orders · Page 2 of 6
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 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of the submission made by the appellant's advocate, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee as withdrawn. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.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 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 return filed on 20.05.2015 was not a valid rectification under Section 139(9) as it materially altered the declared income, going beyond the scope of curing the defect. The CIT(A) was justified in upholding the AO's decision to treat it as invalid and proceed with assessment based on the original return. Therefore, the disallowance of Rs. 2,38,95,862 (differential amount) was upheld. Regarding the addition of Rs. 17,55,058 under Section 40(a)(ia), the Tribunal found no justification for the addition and ordered its deletion. For the addition of Rs. 27,09,330 on account of estimated expenses, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions that all details were provided, books were audited, and no discrepancies were noted. The ad-hoc disallowance of 20% was deleted. Regarding the disallowance of Rs. 2,70,026 for depreciation, the Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished sufficient details and satisfied the conditions under Section 32(1). The disallowance was deleted. Grounds 6 and 7 were considered consequential and required no specific adjudication. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's grounds related to the sale of land (Grounds 1 and 1.2) were allowed. While the judgment excerpt does not detail the specific reasoning for allowing these grounds, it implies that the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments, potentially regarding the classification of income or the deduction of costs. Regarding the income from business trusts (Ground 2), the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal. It reasoned that the distributed income from business trusts remains exempt in the hands of the unit holder if the underlying SPV has not exercised the option under Section 115BAA. The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided declarations and tax communications confirming the SPVs had not opted for Section 115BAA, and that the business trusts did not deduct TDS on the dividend component, consistent with the statutory framework of Sections 10(23FD), 10(23FC), 115UA, and 194LBA(2A). Consequently, the addition of Rs. 49,64,279 was directed to be deleted. Grounds 3 and 4 concerning interest under Sections 234B and 234D were held to be consequential and required no separate adjudication. The issue of the ex-parte order (Ground 5) was not explicitly decided in the provided excerpt.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received by the assessees under the BSNL VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The reasoning was based on the fact that identical issues had been considered by the Tribunal in previous cases involving BSNL employees, such as Jayeshkumar Tulsidas Sutaria vs. ITO (ITA Nos. 2387 & 2388/AHD/2025), where the compensation was held to be exempt under Section 10(10B). The Tribunal noted that the revenue had failed to distinguish these decisions on facts or law. The view was further supported by the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. vs. Katiji and Ors. regarding condonation of delay and a CBDT circular advising officers not to take advantage of an assessee's ignorance. The Assessing Officer was directed to compute the taxable income accordingly and grant any due refund. The assessees were directed to provide details of the compensation and income computation claiming the exemption. All grounds raised by the assessees were allowed.
The ITAT held that the NFAC erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal solely on the grounds of limitation without addressing the merits. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC to be bonafide and reasonable. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Another v. Mst. Katiji & Others, the ITAT condoned the delay of 230 days in filing the appeal before the NFAC. Consequently, the ITAT restored the appeal to the file of the NFAC with a direction to adjudicate the grounds raised by the assessee on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee was allowed. Grounds No. 2 and 3 were dismissed as having been rendered infructuous because the issues were remanded back to the NFAC for adjudication on merits. All rights and contentions of the assessee were left open. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that a mere disallowance of a claim does not automatically amount to misreporting of income under Section 270A of the Act. The Revenue must establish that the case falls within the specific circumstances prescribed under Section 270A(9). In the present case, the penalty was levied on account of the disallowance of employees' contribution towards PF and ESI. However, the material on record did not establish that the assessee's case fell within any of the categories of misreporting specified under Section 270A(9). The mere disallowance of the claim, by itself, was not sufficient to justify the levy of penalty for misreporting. Respectfully following a co-ordinate bench decision in Hiro Mulchand Tanwani v. ITO, the Tribunal held that the penalty for misreporting of income was not sustainable. Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the penalty of ₹4,42,866/- was deleted. The grounds relating to the levy of penalty were allowed. The remaining grounds were not adjudicated as they became academic.
The Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal, quashing the revisionary order passed by the PCIT under Section 263 of the Act. The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's judgment in the case of Neetu Hurkat Vs. PCIT, Ahmedabad (ITA No. 957/Ahd/2024). It was held that revisionary proceedings initiated solely on the basis of audit objections, without independent satisfaction of the PCIT, are unsustainable. The Tribunal noted that the AO had conducted due inquiries and accepted the Assessee's explanations, taking a plausible view. Relying on Supreme Court judgments in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT and CIT v. Max India Ltd., it was reiterated that an order cannot be deemed erroneous merely because the PCIT holds a different opinion or prefers another view when the AO has taken a permissible view after due diligence. The Tribunal also cited Indian & Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT, holding that audit objections constitute mere opinions and cannot form the basis for revision. The PCIT had neither conducted fresh inquiries nor brought new material on record, making the revision legally untenable.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was afforded multiple opportunities by the CIT(A) to furnish details and explanations regarding the cash deposits under Section 69A of the Act, but remained non-compliant, sought adjournments, and failed to provide the requisite information. The assessee also failed to submit details to the AO. Before the ITAT, the assessee's counsel requested an opportunity to furnish all necessary details. The assessee offered to voluntarily pay ₹10,000/- to the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment. The assessee is directed to submit all relevant bank statements, submissions, and documents to the AO and comply with revenue notices without unnecessary adjournments. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received by the assessees under the BSNL VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The reasoning was based on the fact that identical issues had been considered by the Tribunal in previous cases involving BSNL employees, such as Jayeshkumar Tulsidas Sutaria vs. ITO (ITA Nos. 2387 & 2388/AHD/2025), where the compensation was held to be exempt under Section 10(10B). The Tribunal noted that the revenue had failed to distinguish these decisions on facts or law. The view was further supported by the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. vs. Katiji and Ors. regarding condonation of delay and a CBDT circular advising officers not to take advantage of an assessee's ignorance. The Assessing Officer was directed to compute the taxable income accordingly and grant any due refund. The assessees were directed to provide details of the compensation and income computation claiming the exemption. All grounds raised by the assessees were allowed.
The Tribunal decided to delete the penalty of Rs.42,61,082/- levied upon the assessee. The decision was based on respectfully following the precedent set by a Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ashok Ramanlal Tamboli (ITA No. 344/AHD/2026), which involved identical facts and circumstances concerning the same property sale transaction. The Tribunal noted that the Learned Departmental Representative could not distinguish the cited decision. The reasoning adopted in the cited case, which was accepted by the Tribunal in the present appeal, involved the assessee and their family members being agriculturists, unaware of the prohibition on cash transactions, and accepting cash due to dire financial need. The fact that the cash amount was subsequently declared in a revised return and that penalty proceedings were dropped in the case of another co-sharer for the same transaction were also considered significant. The ratio decidendi is that if a co-owner in a property sale transaction, facing similar circumstances of unawareness and financial compulsion, has had the penalty under Section 271D deleted by a Co-ordinate Bench, then the penalty in the present case should also be deleted, especially when the revenue cannot distinguish the precedent.
Regarding the addition under Section 41(1) (Assessee's appeal), the Tribunal held that in the absence of any confirmation from the creditor, the entry remains unexplained and unsubstantiated. The Tribunal noted that the creditor was not interested in providing details or pursuing recovery, which was sufficient to hold that there was a cessation of liability. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the Ld. CIT(A)'s findings and upheld the addition. The Assessee's appeal was dismissed. Regarding the addition under Section 68 (Revenue's appeal), the Tribunal held that the AO merely noticed a surge in cash deposits during the demonetization period but did not bring any material on record to establish that the Assessee's claim of deposits being out of sales proceeds was wrong. The AO had suspicion but did not substantiate it, and suspicion cannot replace evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the Ld. CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition under Section 68. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed. Both appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the compensation of Rs. 11,69,071/- received by the assessee under the BSNL VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The reasoning was based on the consistent view of the Tribunal in similar cases involving BSNL VRS-2019 compensation, such as Jayeshkumar Tulsidas Sutaria vs. ITO, and other cited precedents. The Tribunal also found support from the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. vs. Katiji and Ors. regarding condonation of delay and CBDT Circular No. 14 of 1955, emphasizing not to take advantage of an assessee's ignorance. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to compute the taxable income accordingly and grant any refund due. It was also noted that an exemption of Rs. 5,00,000/- granted under Section 10(10C) would stand withdrawn as double exemption for the same amount is not permissible. For AY 2021-22, a similar compensation of Rs. 25,65,979/- was also held exempt under Section 10(10B), with the Assessing Officer directed to compute taxable income and grant refund. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received by the assessees under the BSNL VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The reasoning was based on the fact that identical issues had been considered by the Tribunal in previous cases involving BSNL employees, such as Jayeshkumar Tulsidas Sutaria vs. ITO (ITA Nos. 2387 & 2388/AHD/2025), where the compensation was held to be exempt under Section 10(10B). The Tribunal noted that the revenue had failed to distinguish these decisions on facts or law. The view was further supported by the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. vs. Katiji and Ors. regarding condonation of delay and a CBDT circular advising officers not to take advantage of an assessee's ignorance. The Assessing Officer was directed to compute the taxable income accordingly and grant any due refund. The assessees were directed to provide details of the compensation and income computation claiming the exemption. All grounds raised by the assessees were allowed.
Regarding the addition under Section 41(1) (Assessee's appeal), the Tribunal held that in the absence of any confirmation from the creditor, the entry remains unexplained and unsubstantiated. The Tribunal noted that the creditor was not interested in providing details or pursuing recovery, which was sufficient to hold that there was a cessation of liability. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the Ld. CIT(A)'s findings and upheld the addition. The Assessee's appeal was dismissed. Regarding the addition under Section 68 (Revenue's appeal), the Tribunal held that the AO merely noticed a surge in cash deposits during the demonetization period but did not bring any material on record to establish that the Assessee's claim of deposits being out of sales proceeds was wrong. The AO had suspicion but did not substantiate it, and suspicion cannot replace evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the Ld. CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition under Section 68. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed. Both appeals were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received by the assessees under the BSNL VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The reasoning was based on the fact that identical issues had been considered by the Tribunal in previous cases involving BSNL employees, such as Jayeshkumar Tulsidas Sutaria vs. ITO (ITA Nos. 2387 & 2388/AHD/2025), where the compensation was held to be exempt under Section 10(10B). The Tribunal noted that the revenue had failed to distinguish these decisions on facts or law. The view was further supported by the Supreme Court's judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. vs. Katiji and Ors. regarding condonation of delay and a CBDT circular advising officers not to take advantage of an assessee's ignorance. The Assessing Officer was directed to compute the taxable income accordingly and grant any due refund. The assessees were directed to provide details of the compensation and income computation claiming the exemption. All grounds raised by the assessees were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the cause of substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations when refusing to condone delay in genuine circumstances. Considering the assessee's background as a small trader and agriculturist who relied on his accountant, and the explanation offered, the Tribunal found sufficient cause for the 220-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), deeming the lapse bona fide. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had data on purchase and sale considerations but added the entire sale consideration without accounting for the purchase consideration, and that the assessee had incurred a loss from the trading transactions. Citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Another v. Mst. Katiji & Others, the Tribunal overturned the CIT(A)'s decision, condoned the delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication. All rights and contentions of the assessee were left open, with directions for the assessee to cooperate and the Assessing Officer to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Ground No. 5 was allowed, rendering other grounds infructuous at this stage.
The Tribunal held that the compensation of Rs. 11,69,071/- received by the assessee under the BSNL VRS-2019 is exempt under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The reasoning was based on the consistent view of the Tribunal in similar cases involving BSNL VRS-2019 compensation, such as Jayeshkumar Tulsidas Sutaria vs. ITO, and other cited precedents. The Tribunal also found support from the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and Ors. vs. Katiji and Ors. regarding condonation of delay and CBDT Circular No. 14 of 1955, emphasizing not to take advantage of an assessee's ignorance. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to compute the taxable income accordingly and grant any refund due. It was also noted that an exemption of Rs. 5,00,000/- granted under Section 10(10C) would stand withdrawn as double exemption for the same amount is not permissible. For AY 2021-22, a similar compensation of Rs. 25,65,979/- was also held exempt under Section 10(10B), with the Assessing Officer directed to compute taxable income and grant refund. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal held that while the material found during the search (diary noting 'Total Cost: 3,26,76,000/-') was sufficient to initiate reassessment proceedings under Section 147, it did not constitute sufficient evidence to prove that the assessee had paid on-money for the property. The Tribunal noted that all payments related to the property were made in financial years prior to the relevant previous year for AY 2019-20, and this fact was not disputed by the Revenue. This shifted the preponderance of possibility in favour of the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal overturned the CIT(A)'s decision and deleted the addition of ₹57,47,028/- made under Section 69A. Grounds 3 and 6 were allowed, while grounds 4 and 5 were dismissed as alternative contentions. Regarding grounds 1 and 2, challenging the validity of reassessment, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s conclusion that there was tangible material to initiate reassessment, citing the judgment in Raymond Woollen Mills Ltd. v. ITO. Thus, grounds 1 and 2 were dismissed. Ground 7, concerning interest under Sections 234B and 234C, was disposed of as consequential. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee did not hold registration under Section 12AA for the relevant assessment year, which justified the denial of exemption under Section 11. However, it held that denying exemption does not automatically mean the entire gross receipts should be taxed without considering the expenditure incurred. The CIT(A) had not examined the expenditure of Rs. 26,90,225/- claimed against total receipts of Rs. 27,00,000/-. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer (AO) with a direction to verify the claimed expenditure and allow it to the extent admissible. The remaining income was to be assessed in the status of an Association of Persons (AOP) applying the applicable tax rates. The AO was directed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received by the assessee under the BSNL VRS-2019 is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The Tribunal noted that identical issues concerning compensation received under the same BSNL VRS-2019 scheme by identically placed employees had been consistently decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal in previous cases, such as Jayeshkumar Tulsidas Sutaria vs. ITO Ward 7(2)(1), Ahmedabad and Kirtida Rajeshkumar Shah vs. ITO Ward 7(2)(1), Ahmedabad. The Tribunal found no distinction in facts or law presented by the Revenue to deviate from these precedents. The Tribunal also found support for its view in CBDT Circular No. 14 of 1955. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to compute the taxable income accordingly and grant any refund due. Grounds 2 and 3 were allowed, and Ground 1 was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal, in view of the precedents in the assessee's own cases for Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2021-22, confirmed the decision of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The Tribunal found no hesitation in following the decisions of the co-ordinate bench in the assessee's own cases for subsequent assessment years. The reasoning is that the issue involved in the present appeal is identical to those decided in the later years by a co-ordinate bench. The CIT(A) had accepted the assessee's claim for deduction of ESOP expenses by following these ITAT decisions. The Revenue's argument that the ITAT orders for succeeding years are under challenge before the High Court was noted, but the Tribunal chose to follow the established precedents in the assessee's own cases. The operative direction is to dismiss the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the issue raised by the assessee is squarely covered by the decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches of the ITAT. Specifically, the Tribunal followed its own order in ITA Nos. 2387 & 2388/Ahd/2025 for AYs 2020-21 & 2021-22 in the case of Jayeshkumar Tulsidas Sutaria Vs. ITO. The Tribunal noted that in similar cases involving BSNL VRS-2019 compensation, exemption under Section 10(10B) was granted, and the assessee was eligible for a refund of TDS. The Tribunal also referenced the CBDT's Notification No. 31/2023 dated 24.05.2023, which increased the limit for leave encashment exemption under Section 10(10AA) to Rs. 25,00,000. Respectfully following these precedents, the Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 10(10B) for the entire amount of retrenchment compensation (VRS compensation) and leave encashment. The Assessing Officer (AO) was directed to grant the appropriate relief. The issue of whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as not being an appealable order under Section 246(1) was implicitly addressed by the Tribunal deciding the substantive grounds on merits.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The issue regarding the claim under Section 80GGC was found to be covered by the Tribunal's own order in the case of Saurabh Pravinbhai Patel Vs. ITO (ITA No.1017/Ahd/2023), dated 30.04.2025. In that case, the disallowance under Section 80GGC was upheld based on investigation material, bank trail, and the modus operandi of the recipient political party. The Tribunal also noted that similar issues were adjudicated by co-ordinate benches in other cases, including Mihir Bipinbhai Parekh Vs. DCIT, Milind Pankajbhai Shroff Vs. Pr. CIT-1, Ritesh Sugan Jain Vs. ITO, and Rajen Jayantilal Merchant Vs. ITO. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) affirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. The grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was indeed denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It observed that the assessee had sought an adjournment before the AO, which was not granted, and the grievance regarding the denial of adequate hearing was also not duly addressed by the CIT(A). Considering these facts and the assessee's willingness to substantiate its claims with evidence, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to provide one more opportunity. Consequently, the orders of the lower authorities were set aside, and the matter was restored to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to submit the working of work in progress, and certain discrepancies were noticed. The Assessing Officer did not accept the assessee's revised reconciliation, but the reasons for non-acceptance were not discussed in detail by either the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A). The Tribunal held that since the necessary verification on this issue goes to the root of the addition, it is necessary to restore this issue to the CIT(A) for due verification of the assessee's claim and for passing a speaking order. The CIT(A) may call for a remand report from the Assessing Officer if required. The assessee is directed to furnish all relevant break-up details and necessary reconciliation with evidence. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The issue of interest under Section 234B and 234C was not explicitly decided but is implicitly covered by the restoration of the primary addition.
The Tribunal held that for the disallowed expenses under Section 57, there was no direct nexus with the earning of interest income. General maintenance expenditure for upkeeping society premises and amenities cannot be presumed to have a direct nexus with earning bank interest income. Therefore, the disallowance of expenses claimed under Section 57 was upheld for both assessment years, dismissing grounds 1 to 5. However, the Tribunal found merit in the alternative contention that even if disallowed under Section 57, the expenses remain admissible as a statutory deduction in computing income under the head ‘Profits and Gains of Business or Profession’, as the revenue did not challenge the factum of expenses being incurred. Consequently, the deduction of these expenses would result in a net business loss, which the assessee is entitled to set off against its income under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’ pursuant to Sections 70/71 of the Act. Thus, grounds 6, 7, and 8 were allowed, directing the Assessing Officer to re-compute income under ‘Profits & Gains of Business’ and allow set off of the net loss. Ground 9 regarding interest under Section 234B was disposed of as consequential. Ground 10 concerning penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) was disposed of as premature. The appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the merits of the case, especially given the delay was only 12 days. The Tribunal found that the assessee, a government employee, had explained the transaction of Rs. 2,50,000/-. The assessee initially paid cash, but this was returned, and the booking was secured through cheque payments. The sources for the Rs. 2,50,000/- cash payment were explained as withdrawals from a joint bank account and past savings. The Tribunal concluded that no on-money was paid by the assessee, and the Rs. 2,50,000/- was paid from explained sources. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 2,50,000/-. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were allowed. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the interest received on enhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is not taxable as income from other sources under Section 56(2)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal reasoned that this interest is an accretion to the value of the land and forms part of the enhanced compensation, aligning with the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanshyam (HUF) and subsequent High Court judgments, including the Gujarat High Court in Movaliya Bhikhubhai Balabhai and the Bombay High Court in Rupesh Rashmikant Shah. The Tribunal further held that the amendments to Section 145A and Section 56(2) by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2009, and Finance Act, 2009, respectively, did not alter the position that interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of the compensation. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not justified. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition. The issue of whether interest paid post the judgment of the High Court is taxable as income from other sources was not explicitly decided for the assessee's specific case but was discussed in the context of the Bombay High Court's ruling.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(Exemption) had rejected the assessee's application on hyper-technical grounds. It was noted that the assessee had been receiving approval for registration under Section 80G for years and had submitted copies of relevant certificates. The Tribunal found that the rejection was solely based on the incorrect sub-clause selected, without delving into the merits of the case. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Exemption) and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(Exemption) for de-novo adjudication. The Ld. CIT(Exemption) was directed to consider the application under the appropriate sub-clause, ignoring the typographical mistake. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A), Gwalior, directing the Assessing Officer to grant exemption under section 11 of the Act. The Tribunal noted that Form 10B was filed belatedly, but the delay had been condoned by the Ld. CIT(Exemption), Pune. Additionally, the Tribunal observed that there were mistakes in the original Income Tax Return filed by the assessee. The assessee had declared expenses of Rs. 2,22,34,901/- under Revenue Expenses and Rs. 92,02,468/- under Capital Expenses. When these expenses were considered along with the gross receipts, the application of income exceeded the receipts for the year, indicating nil income. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A)'s finding that the assessee was eligible for exemption under section 11. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue were accordingly dismissed. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) had rejected the assessee's application on hyper-technical grounds. It was noted that the assessee had been receiving approval for registration under Section 80G for years, and copies of relevant certificates were provided. The Tribunal found that the registration was rejected solely due to the selection of an incorrect sub-clause without examining the merits of the case. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(E) and remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(E) for de-novo adjudication. The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to consider the application under the appropriate sub-clause, ignoring the typographical mistake. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal noted that both parties fairly submitted that the issue was covered by the order in Goverdhan D Bhambhani Vs. ITO and also by a co-ordinate bench in ITA Nos. 2387 & 2388/Ahd/2025 in the case of Jayeshkumar Tulsidas Sutaria. The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act on the entire amount of retrenchment compensation (termed as VRS Compensation) and any leave encashment. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the relief accordingly. The Tribunal found no change in the legal proposition or factual matrix from the cited precedents. The ratio is that compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B), and appellate authorities can entertain such claims even if not made in the original return, especially when the assessee was unaware of the legal provisions at the time of filing the return.
The Tribunal held that substantial justice is more important than procedural delay and that no assessee gains by filing an appeal belatedly. The Tribunal was convinced that there was a sufficient cause for the 52-day delay in filing the appeal before it and accordingly condoned the delay. Regarding the delay before the Ld. CIT(A), the Tribunal, after perusing the assessee's elaborate explanation, was convinced that there was a sufficient cause for the 412-day delay. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) and restored the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was to be set aside for de-novo adjudication. The Tribunal noted that while the assessee had not filed a return under section 139(1), a notice under section 148 was issued. It was an admitted fact that the assessee did not file a return within 30 days of the section 148 notice. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee had filed a return in response to the section 148 notice on March 9, 2022, and provided a copy of this return along with a reply to the AO on March 10, 2022, as evidenced by the e-acknowledgement. This fact was not rebutted by the revenue. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the show cause notice was issued on March 29, 2022, and the assessment order was passed on March 30, 2022, which did not provide proper and sufficient time for the assessee to reply. Therefore, in light of these facts, the Tribunal set aside the assessment order and remanded it to the AO for fresh adjudication, with a direction to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and for the assessee to provide necessary documents. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments. It acknowledged that the assessee had been filing returns since AY 2012-13 and showing substantial agricultural income since AY 2016-17, a fact not denied by the Assessing Officer. While the opening cash balance of Rs. 19,74,376 was not fully accepted, the Tribunal accepted that the assessee had an opening cash balance of Rs. 15,00,000. It was held that Rs. 7,50,000 of this was deposited prior to demonetization, and Rs. 7,50,000 was deposited during the demonetization period. Furthermore, the Tribunal accepted that the remaining Rs. 7,50,000 deposited during demonetization was explained by the assessee's current year's disclosed income, which included agricultural income. Therefore, the assessee successfully explained the sources of the Rs. 15,00,000 deposit. The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs. 15,00,000 made under section 69A. The ratio decidendi is that if an assessee can demonstrate a reasonable opening cash balance and current year's disclosed income, including agricultural income, cash deposits during demonetization can be explained.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was void ab initio and bad in law. This was based on two primary reasons: (1) the reopening was initiated based on information pertaining to another assessee, and (2) the entire transactions (cash and transfer entries) were considered for reopening, whereas transfer entries related to explained sources (retirement/pensionary benefits) were accepted by the AO himself. The Tribunal found that the sources of the cash deposit of Rs. 9,40,000/- were successfully explained before the CIT(A)/NFAC, who erred in not accepting them. Following the Bombay High Court's decision in Narendra Kumar Shah vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, the Tribunal quashed the Section 148 notice and the consequential assessment order dated March 21, 2024. On merits, the addition of Rs. 9,40,000/- was also set aside. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition and accept the income returned by the assessee. The grounds of appeal were allowed.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and restored the application for fresh consideration. The reasoning was that the CIT(E) appeared not to have considered the documents filed by the assessee, treating the assessee as non-compliant. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to take into account the documents filed by the assessee and to seek any other documents deemed fit for examination. The assessee was also directed to diligently participate in the proceedings. The ratio decidendi is that an application for registration under section 12A cannot be rejected without a proper examination of the documents submitted by the assessee, and failure to appear for hearings might be a consequence of the assessing officer not acknowledging submitted documents. The operative direction is to re-examine the application.
The Tribunal held that for the disallowed expenses under Section 57, there was no direct nexus with the earning of interest income. General maintenance expenditure for upkeeping society premises and amenities cannot be presumed to have a direct nexus with earning bank interest income. Therefore, the disallowance of expenses claimed under Section 57 was upheld for both assessment years, dismissing grounds 1 to 5. However, the Tribunal found merit in the alternative contention that even if disallowed under Section 57, the expenses remain admissible as a statutory deduction in computing income under the head ‘Profits and Gains of Business or Profession’, as the revenue did not challenge the factum of expenses being incurred. Consequently, the deduction of these expenses would result in a net business loss, which the assessee is entitled to set off against its income under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’ pursuant to Sections 70/71 of the Act. Thus, grounds 6, 7, and 8 were allowed, directing the Assessing Officer to re-compute income under ‘Profits & Gains of Business’ and allow set off of the net loss. Ground 9 regarding interest under Section 234B was disposed of as consequential. Ground 10 concerning penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) was disposed of as premature. The appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal by quashing the notice dated 28.07.2022 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal and the Delhi High Court's decision in Ram Balram Buildhome (P.) Ltd. v. ITO, which held that the remaining time for issuing a reassessment notice under the new regime, after considering the period of exclusion due to the pandemic and the issuance of the first notice, was limited. In this case, the notice dated 28.07.2022 was found to be issued beyond the surviving period available to the Revenue. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings and the assessment order dated 22.05.2023 were also quashed. The Tribunal noted that since the primary legal ground (Additional Ground No. 2) was allowed, the remaining grounds of appeal became infructuous and were not adjudicated. The ratio decidendi is that reassessment notices issued under the new regime must be within the 'surviving period' as calculated based on Supreme Court pronouncements, and if issued beyond this period, they are void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the issue regarding the claim under section 80GGC was covered by its own prior order in the case of Saurabh Pravinbhai Patel Vs. ITO (ITA No.1017/Ahd/2023), which upheld the disallowance under section 80GGC based on investigation material, bank trail, and the modus operandi of the recipient political party. The Tribunal also noted that similar issues had been adjudicated by co-ordinate benches in other cases, including Mihir Bipinbhai Parekh Vs. DCIT, Milind Pankajbhai Shroff Vs. Pr. CIT-1, Ritesh Sugan Jain Vs. ITO, and Rajen Jayantilal Merchant Vs. ITO. Consequently, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) affirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. The grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) solely due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices issued during appellate proceedings. The assessee provided a reasonable explanation for this non-compliance, citing a change in email address and the inaccessibility of the previous account. In the interest of substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to issue notices to the assessee's updated email address, consider the grounds of appeal afresh, examine relevant documentary evidence, and pass an order in accordance with the law after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The assessee was also directed to comply with notices and furnish all necessary documents. The ratio decidendi is that procedural lapses due to genuine reasons, such as change of contact details, should not preclude a substantive hearing on merits, especially when substantial justice is at stake.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 270A for misreporting of income was not sustainable. The Tribunal respectfully followed its co-ordinate bench's decision in Hiro Mulchand Tanwani Vs Income Tax Officer for AY 2019-20 (ITA No.110/Ahd/2026 dated 15.05.2026). In that case, it was held that the mere disallowance of a deduction claimed under Section 80GGC, even if the donation was not found to be eligible, does not automatically amount to 'misreporting of income' as defined under Section 270A(9). The Tribunal noted that the assessee had disclosed the donation transparently in the return. The disallowance arose from the AO's dissatisfaction with the genuineness or eligibility. Crucially, there was no material on record to establish that the assessee had furnished false evidence, suppressed facts, or made deliberate misrepresentation. The Tribunal reasoned that unless the revenue demonstrates with cogent evidence that the claim was knowingly made on the basis of false particulars, the higher penalty for misreporting is not legally tenable. At best, it could be considered 'under-reporting', but even that requires specific conditions to be met. Since the assessee's case was factually similar to the cited precedent, and no contrary decision or distinguishing facts were presented, the penalty was deleted. The appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 270A for misreporting of income is not sustainable. The decision was based on a respectful following of a coordinate bench's order in the case of Hiro Mulchand Tanwani Vs. Income Tax Officer for AY 2019-20. In that case, it was held that the mere fact that an assessee did not challenge a quantum addition does not amount to an admission of concealment or furnishing of false particulars. Penalty proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings. Section 270A distinguishes between 'under-reporting' and 'misreporting'. Misreporting requires specific circumstances outlined in sub-section (9), such as misrepresentation or suppression of facts. In the present case, the deduction was claimed transparently, and the disallowance was based on the Assessing Officer's adverse view regarding its admissibility. Without cogent evidence of deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars or fabricated documents, the higher penalty for misreporting is unsustainable. The penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) was deleted. The appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Regarding the disallowance of the deduction claimed under Section 80GGC amounting to Rs. 4,21,000/-, the Tribunal held that this issue was covered by its own order in the case of Saurabh Pravinbhai Patel Vs. ITO (ITA No.1017/Ahd/2023, dated 30.04.2025), which upheld the disallowance based on investigation material, bank trail, and the modus operandi of the recipient political party. The Tribunal also noted that similar issues were adjudicated by coordinate benches in the cases of Mihir Bipinbhai Parekh Vs. DCIT, Milind Pankajbhai Shroff Vs. Pr. CIT-1, Rajkot, Ritesh Sugan Jain Vs. ITO, and Rajen Jayantilal Merchant Vs. ITO. Consequently, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) affirming the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee in this regard. The judgment does not explicitly detail the findings on the other procedural grounds raised by the assessee, but their dismissal is implied by the overall dismissal of the appeal. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to fix a date and obtain all details and supporting documents from the assessee to substantiate adequate own/borrowed funds for the payment treated as unexplained expenditure/unsecured loans. If the payment was claimed as an unsecured loan, the assessee was to provide evidence of the nature of the transaction, repayment, and that borrowing and repayment were through proper banking channels, duly confirmed by the other party. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission regarding the previous counsel's failure and the need for a proper opportunity to present evidence. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be well served by remanding the matter to the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) for consideration of the application afresh. This decision was based on the fact that the assessee had failed to furnish substantial documents and explanations, and the assessee's counsel prayed for an opportunity to present these to the CIT(E). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order rejecting the application for registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and also set aside the order rejecting the application for approval under section 80G(5)(iii) for fresh adjudication. The ratio decidendi is that when an assessee demonstrates a willingness to provide pending details and seeks an opportunity, remanding the matter to the lower authority for a fresh consideration, including the submitted explanations, serves the interests of justice. The operative direction is to remand both matters to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 34,40,123/- made under Section 69A of the Act and confirmed by the CIT(A) is not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the assessee consistently contended that the amount was recorded in the regular books of account as cash received from identified debtors against outstanding business dues. The CIT(A) also acknowledged the entries in the books. The Tribunal found that the assessee furnished party-wise details, including PANs and ledger accounts, along with audited financial statements, cash books, sales and purchase registers, stock records, and VAT returns. No specific defects were identified in these records. The Tribunal held that the absence of debtor confirmations, by itself, cannot be treated as conclusive when the assessee has provided identifiable particulars and supporting books of account. The explanation could not be rejected merely on suspicion without considering the documentary material. The Tribunal also found merit in the contention that the acceptance of Specified Bank Notes during demonetisation does not automatically render receipts unexplained under the Act. The lower authorities relied principally on the absence of confirmations and demonetisation circumstances without adequately rebutting the documentary evidence. The Tribunal also observed that the CIT(A) alternatively referred to Section 68, but any change in the statutory provision requires a fair opportunity for the assessee. Since the assessee maintained regular books, furnished party particulars, and produced supporting records, and the AO did not reject the books or identify defects, the addition was sustained without adequately establishing it as unexplained money under Section 69A. Accordingly, the addition was deleted, and Grounds 2 to 7 were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be well served by remanding the matter to the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) for consideration of the application afresh. This decision was based on the fact that the assessee had failed to furnish substantial documents and explanations, and the assessee's counsel prayed for an opportunity to present these to the CIT(E). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order rejecting the application for registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and also set aside the order rejecting the application for approval under section 80G(5)(iii) for fresh adjudication. The ratio decidendi is that when an assessee demonstrates a willingness to provide pending details and seeks an opportunity, remanding the matter to the lower authority for a fresh consideration, including the submitted explanations, serves the interests of justice. The operative direction is to remand both matters to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.