ITAT Allahabad Judgments — June 2026

The Tribunal, following the majority view of the Division Bench and the Third Member, decided various issues concerning additions made by the Assessing Officer. Some additions were deleted, some were sustained, and some matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, following the majority view of the Division Bench and the Third Member, decided various issues concerning additions made by the Assessing Officer. Some additions were deleted, some were sustained, and some matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, following the majority view of the Division Bench and the Third Member, decided various issues concerning additions made by the Assessing Officer. Some additions were deleted, some were sustained, and some matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, based on the majority view of the Judicial Member and the Third Member, held that the penalty under Section 221(1) was not justified. The Assessing Officer had not properly considered the assessee's financial condition or formulated his opinion under Section 220(6) before levying the penalty.

The Third Member agreed with the Judicial Member that withdrawal of a previous appeal should not prevent adjudication of an issue if it was invalidly disallowed. The disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was restored to the AO for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had conducted a detailed inquiry and considered the assessee's submissions regarding the nature of its business and the eligibility of interest income for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Since the AO's view was plausible and supported by various judicial precedents, the PCIT could not invoke Section 263 merely due to a difference of opinion.

The Tribunal, following the majority view of the Division Bench and the Third Member, decided various issues concerning additions made by the Assessing Officer. Some additions were deleted, some were sustained, and some matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 153A(b) was not sustainable as it was not based on any incriminating material found during the search. The Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. was relied upon, stating that additions in completed assessments under Section 153A require incriminating material.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the AO. It found that the AO failed to provide sufficient justification for rejecting the books of account and estimating profit at 7%. The Tribunal also agreed with the CIT(A) that the sundry creditors and cash deposits were adequately explained and accounted for.

The Tribunal found that while reassessment proceedings were valid, the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to explain the addition due to the non-provision of the purchase deed. Therefore, the issue was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that Section 11(1)(b) of the Act is applicable to trusts created before the commencement of the Income Tax Act, 1961, allowing exemption for income applied to charitable purposes. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in favour of the assessee and set aside the orders of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer, allowing the assessee one more opportunity to present their case and produce necessary evidence. The assessee was cautioned to fully comply with the AO's directions in the set-aside proceedings.

The Tribunal held that Section 11(1)(b) of the Act is applicable to trusts created before the commencement of the Income Tax Act, 1961, allowing exemption for income applied to charitable purposes. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision in favour of the assessee and set aside the orders of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the requirement of filing Form 67 is directory, not mandatory, and the delay was due to genuine reasons caused by the pandemic. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for the Foreign Tax Credit.

The Third Member held that the AO erred in questioning the charitable objects of the society, especially after it had been granted registration under Section 12AA. The enquiry should be confined to verifying the specific expenses disallowed by estimation.

The Tribunal held that the ad-hoc addition made by the AO on account of construction material was not justified. The nature of the business and the consumables used meant that materials, once used, had no commercial value or market, and the assessee's accounting method was consistent.

The Third Member held that the matter should be restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo verification of issues originally selected for limited scrutiny. The scope of remand was restricted to these issues, and the imposition of costs was deemed unjustified.

The Third Member, concurring with the Judicial Member, held that the Assessing Officer cannot apply an average profit rate based on past history when presumptive taxation under Section 44AD is claimed, especially without contrary material. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be in accordance with the law. Since the assessee did not provide any new material or reasons to interfere with the lower appellate authority's decision, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as it was filed beyond the statutory time limit. The assessee was given liberty to approach the Tribunal again if sufficient cause for the delay and non-appearance could be shown.