ITAT Amritsar Judgments — March 2026

The Tribunal found that the quantum appeal against the assessment order was still pending and its outcome, particularly on the jurisdictional issue, had a direct bearing on the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal, following the decisions of the Hon'ble Sikkim High Court and other coordinate benches, held that the interest income earned by the assessee from investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The Tribunal found that the ratio laid down in various High Court and Supreme Court judgments cited by the Revenue were distinguishable from the present case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, in the interest of justice, remanded the matter back to the first appellate authority to grant the assessee an opportunity to present his case with necessary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated the appeal on merits and had failed to consider the evidence submitted by the assessee, such as affidavits from donors and their financial documents. Following the precedent set by the Bombay High Court, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted it for hearing. Although the assessee did not appear, the Tribunal proceeded to hear the appeal based on the grounds and issues involved. The Tribunal observed that the society was duly registered and had obtained provisional registration. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had agreed to incorporate the missing clauses in its MOA.

The tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT (Exemptions) and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication. It directed the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with three effective opportunities to furnish all necessary details and evidence to substantiate its charitable activities, emphasizing that the rejection was based on a lack of documentary evidence which the assessee claimed was not explicitly requested.

The tribunal set aside both the cancellation of 12A/12AB registration and the rejection of the 80G application, remanding the matters back to the CIT (Exemption) for de novo consideration. The tribunal directed the assessee to provide all necessary details and evidence of its charitable activities, and the CIT(E) to provide adequate opportunities for hearing.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order for de novo adjudication, noting that the assessee did not receive proper notice for the appellate proceedings. The tribunal directed the CIT(A) to provide a fresh opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT (Exemptions) and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication. It directed the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with three effective opportunities to furnish all necessary details and evidence to substantiate its charitable activities, emphasizing that the rejection was based on a lack of documentary evidence which the assessee claimed was not explicitly requested.

The tribunal set aside both the cancellation of 12A/12AB registration and the rejection of the 80G application, remanding the matters back to the CIT (Exemption) for a fresh decision. The tribunal directed the assessee to provide all necessary details and evidence of its activities, and the CIT(E) to provide adequate opportunities for hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the interest of justice. However, considering the circumstances, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to furnish all documentary evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay due to the unusual facts and the admitted mistake by the revenue. The Tribunal found that the appeal before the CIT(A) was wrongly dismissed without adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay but imposed a cost. It noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits and found it practical to remand the matter to the AO for considering additional documentary evidence, setting aside the assessment 'de-novo'.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not filed fresh documentary evidence and that granting an adjournment would not serve any purpose. However, it remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to allow one more opportunity to file fresh documentary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposit from the loan repayment was sufficiently explained given the affidavit from the lender and the availability for cross-examination, and the deposit from sale of produce was supported by documentary evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee is a trader and admitted lack of books, the Tribunal determined net profit at 8% on estimated sales, applying it to total bank credits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, imposing a token cost, and remanded the matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment considering additional documentary evidence. The Tribunal did not express an opinion on the merits of the case.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal in the interest of justice, imposing a token cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the assessee. However, since the CIT(A) order was passed without a proper adjudication on merits, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the first appellate authority to provide the assessee an opportunity to present their case with evidence.

The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority did not provide the assessee an adequate opportunity to explain the delay. Therefore, the matter was remanded back.

The Tribunal held that the payments of salary to teaching and other staff were made through bank channels and were verifiable from bank statements and regular books of account. The question of EPF/ESIC deposit was not the issue before the Tribunal, as no deduction was claimed for such deposits. Therefore, the core salary portion claimed as deduction was allowable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's explanation and the interest of justice, but imposed a token cost. The matter was remanded to the first appellate authority to allow the assessee to furnish documentary evidence.