ITAT Amritsar Judgments — June 2026

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee is engaged in the electrical goods trading business, covered by Section 44AD. It directed the AO to compute business profits at 8% of the gross sales of Rs. 35 lakhs, deleting the addition under Section 69A.

The Tribunal held that the DVO report, being an expression of opinion, cannot be the sole basis for making additions without corroborative evidence. It emphasized the need for tangible material and regular books of account to justify such additions.

The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 194A(3)(v) applies to payments made by a cooperative society to its members, and the definition of 'member' under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act includes nominal and associate members. Therefore, TDS was not required on interest paid to such members.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cash flow from agricultural sales and bank withdrawals to cover a significant portion of the deposit. While acknowledging a shortfall, the Tribunal allowed a portion of the cash availability, granting consequential relief to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was unsustainable as it did not clearly specify the default for which the penalty was levied, and the penalty was imposed on an amount in excess of the disallowance made. The penalty order was found to be vague and not in accordance with the provisions of Section 270A.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the interest of justice, imposing a token cost on the assessee. However, due to the lack of documentary evidence and proper representation at earlier stages, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh opportunity.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the first appellate authority. This was done to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to explain the source of cash deposits and contractual receipts.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the interest of justice, but imposed costs on the assessee. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds on merits and therefore remanded the matter back for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not legally justified in invoking Section 249(4)(b) as the assessee had filed a return of income. The twin conditions of non-filing of return and non-payment of advance tax were not satisfied. Therefore, the appeal should have been adjudicated on merits.

The Tribunal held that the addition could not be sustained solely on the verbal statement of the seller without any tangible material like invoices or transport documents to prove actual delivery. The Tribunal also noted a violation of natural justice due to the lack of cross-examination opportunity for the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by not issuing proper notices and not adjudicating the appeal on merits. The matter was remanded back for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that there was no valid order under Section 127 for the transfer of jurisdiction, making the assessment order by the Srinagar AO legally invalid. However, on merits, the Tribunal noted that the cash deposit was only Rs. 5.58 lakhs and not Rs. 24.20 lakhs.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the assessee's claim of not receiving notices. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to submit supporting documents.

The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to file all necessary submissions and cooperate in the proceedings. The assessee was granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed against a deceased person without bringing the legal heirs on record as per Section 159(2) is void ab initio. Non-service of statutory notices and failure to follow principles of natural justice were also noted.

The Tribunal held that the source of investment in the car was explained as it was sourced from the bank account and reflected in the audited financials. Regarding indirect expenses, the Tribunal found the amount borne by the assessee to be reasonable and not a case for rejection of books of accounts.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the interest of justice, but imposed costs on the assessee for negligence. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment due to the assessee not getting a proper opportunity to present evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), considering the extension period granted due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal, noting that ex parte orders were passed at both lower stages and considering the assessee's stated medical issues, remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the demonetized currency deposits were part of the gross sale proceeds from the assessee's regular business. It directed the AO to estimate net profits at 6% of the gross sales, deleting the addition for unexplained SBN deposits.