ITAT Bangalore Judgments — May 2026

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not pass a reasoned order as mandated by Section 250(6) and that there was sufficient cause for the assessee's non-compliance due to the demise of the consultant. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the lease rental income should be taxed as business income, not income from house property, due to consistent past treatment and lack of new incriminating material. For the search year, the restriction of incriminating material for additions under section 153A did not apply.

The Tribunal held that the lease rental income should be taxed as business income, not income from house property, due to consistent past treatment and lack of new incriminating material. For the search year, the restriction of incriminating material for additions under section 153A was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the lease rental income should be taxed as business income, not income from house property, due to consistent past treatment and lack of new incriminating material. For the search year, the restriction of incriminating material for additions under section 153A was not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the filing of the audit report in Form 10B is directory and not mandatory, following the Gujarat High Court's decision. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the deduction even though the report was filed late.

The Tribunal held that appellate authorities have the power to admit and decide additional claims even if not raised before the AO, provided the facts are on record. Premium on redemption of debentures is generally considered a revenue expenditure allowable as borrowing cost.

The Tribunal held that the advances were given in the ordinary course of the assessee's business of financing and investment, as evidenced by its Memorandum of Association, past assessment orders, and financial statements. Therefore, the write-off of these bad debts was allowable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not pass a reasoned order as mandated by Section 250(6) and that there was sufficient cause for the assessee's non-compliance due to the demise of the consultant. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence showing severe personal hardship and litigation faced by the assessee, which constituted a reasonable cause for non-filing. The Tribunal also noted that the penalty was levied under Section 270A, but the AO failed to establish misreporting under Section 270A(9) and the show cause notice was vague. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal followed a jurisdictional High Court judgment in an identical case for the assessee, which restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits subject to proof of payment/adjustment of admitted tax.

The Tribunal restored the issues decided against the assessee to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide necessary details within 90 days, and the AO was to decide afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities had not properly considered the statutory documents submitted by the assessee to prove the construction. The assessee's explanation for the omission in the sale deed was also noted.

The Tribunal held that the lease rental income should be taxed as business income, not income from house property, due to consistent past treatment and lack of new incriminating material. For the search year, the restriction of incriminating material for additions under section 153A did not apply.

The Tribunal held that appellate authorities have the power to admit and decide additional claims even if not raised before the AO, provided the facts are on record. Premium on redemption of debentures is generally considered a revenue expenditure allowable as borrowing cost.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was not vague as it clearly stated the reason for penalty as 'under reporting which is in consequence of misreporting of income'. The assessee's reliance on a previous case was distinguished.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on the DVO's estimate, especially when the difference was around 10% and no glaring defects were found in the assessee's accounts, were not sustainable. The appeal for AY 2018-19 was dismissed as the assessee failed to challenge the Section 143(1) intimation earlier.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on the DVO's estimate, especially when the difference was around 10% and no glaring defects were found in the assessee's accounts, were not justified. The appeal for AY 2018-19 was dismissed as the assessee failed to appeal against the Section 143(1) intimation.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on the DVO's estimate, especially when the difference was around 10% and no glaring defects were found in the assessee's accounts, were not sustainable. The appeal for AY 2018-19 was dismissed as the assessee failed to challenge the Section 143(1) intimation earlier.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was not vague as it clearly stated the reason for penalty as 'under reporting which is in consequence of misreporting of income'. The assessee's reliance on a previous case was distinguished.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on the DVO's estimate, especially when the difference was around 10% and no glaring defects were found in the assessee's accounts, were not sustainable. The appeal for AY 2018-19 was dismissed as the assessee failed to challenge the Section 143(1) intimation earlier.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on the DVO's estimate, especially when the difference was around 10% and no glaring defects were found in the assessee's accounts, were not sustainable. The appeal for AY 2018-19 was dismissed as the assessee failed to challenge the Section 143(1) intimation earlier.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on the DVO's estimate, especially when the difference was around 10% and no glaring defects were found in the assessee's accounts, were not sustainable. The appeal for AY 2018-19 was dismissed as the assessee failed to challenge the Section 143(1) intimation earlier.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not provide a clear notice, failed to consider the submitted documents, and did not grant a personal hearing. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(E) were set aside.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not provide a clear notice, failed to consider the submitted documents, and did not grant a personal hearing. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(E) were set aside.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred on structural additions and improvements to the residential property constituted substantial compliance with Section 54F. The beneficial provision should be interpreted liberally, and the assessee is entitled to the deduction.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities of printing and publishing books for educational purposes constitute an educational activity and do not fall under the proviso to section 2(15). Therefore, the assessee is eligible for exemption under sections 11 and 12.

The Tribunal held that while a fresh claim can be raised before the first appellate authority, the CIT(A) failed to examine the nature and source of income from other sources to determine if it was derived from the industrial undertaking as required by Section 80IA.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2015-16, no incriminating material was found during the search relevant to the assessment year, and thus the additions made under section 153A were deleted. For other assessment years, certain additions were deleted based on similar findings for AY 2019-20, while others were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that while a fresh claim can be raised before the first appellate authority, the CIT(A) failed to examine the nature and source of income from other sources to determine if it was derived from the industrial undertaking as required by Section 80IA.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2015-16, no incriminating material was found during the search relevant to the assessment year, and thus the additions made under section 153A were deleted. For other assessment years, certain additions were deleted based on similar findings for AY 2019-20, while others were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal agreed that the assessee had no control over EWS admissions as no students opted under RTE. However, due to the fire safety issue and lack of opportunity, the matter was remanded to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had no control over admissions for EWS students under RTE and that the fire safety compliance was renewed after the rejection order. The matter of fire safety clearance was remitted back to the CIT(Exemptions) for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2015-16, no incriminating material was found during the search relevant to the assessment year, and thus the additions made under section 153A were deleted. For other assessment years, certain additions were deleted based on similar findings for AY 2019-20, while others were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2015-16, no incriminating material was found during the search relevant to the assessment year, and thus the additions made under section 153A were deleted. For other assessment years, certain additions were deleted based on similar findings for AY 2019-20, while others were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that additions based solely on the DVO's estimate, especially when the difference was around 10% and no glaring defects were found in the assessee's accounts, were not sustainable. The appeal for AY 2018-19 was dismissed as the assessee failed to challenge the Section 143(1) intimation earlier.

The Tribunal held that the advertisement receipts were not unexplained cash credits under Section 68 as the payer, source, and commercial arrangement were explained. The receipts were essentially a discount on power tariff routed through a separate agreement.

The Tribunal held that for AY 2015-16, no incriminating material was found during the search relevant to the assessment year, and thus the additions made under section 153A were deleted. For other assessment years, certain additions were deleted based on similar findings for AY 2019-20, while others were remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the omission in Form 10 was an inadvertent mistake rectified by filing a revised form before assessment, thus allowing the accumulation. However, the issue of anonymous donations required further examination.

The Tribunal held that turnover is a relevant factor for comparability and that companies with substantially different turnovers cannot be compared. It directed the AO/TPO to exclude comparables with significantly higher turnovers than the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the advertisement receipts were not unexplained cash credits under Section 68 as the payer, source, and commercial arrangement were explained. The receipts were essentially a discount on power tariff routed through a separate agreement.

The Tribunal held that the advertisement receipts were not unexplained cash credits under Section 68 as the payer, source, and commercial arrangement were explained. The receipts were essentially a discount on power tariff routed through a separate agreement.

The Tribunal held that the advertisement receipts were not unexplained cash credits under Section 68 as the payer, source, and commercial arrangement were explained. The receipts were essentially a discount on power tariff routed through a separate agreement.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) acted in clear violation of Section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by making corporate tax additions of Rs. 10,89,81,456 in the final assessment order dated December 29, 2022. The DRP's directions, issued on November 28, 2022, only pertained to transfer pricing adjustments and did not include any directions regarding corporate tax issues. The Tribunal emphasized that the AO is bound by the directions issued by the DRP under Section 144C(10) and is required to pass the assessment order in conformity with these directions under Section 144C(13). Making additions in the absence of any such directions from the DRP renders the entire additions of Rs. 10,89,81,456 illegal and bad in law. Consequently, these additions are liable to be deleted. The Tribunal also noted that a subsequent draft assessment order dated April 15, 2021, which proposed only corporate tax additions, had already been quashed. The principle is that the AO cannot introduce new additions in the final assessment order that were not part of the draft assessment order or not directed by the DRP.

The Tribunal held that bonus shares, even if issued on shares held as stock-in-trade, can be treated as capital assets if the assessee intends to hold them as such and discloses them as investments. The Tribunal relied on CBDT circulars and Supreme Court judgments to support this.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed submitted the required details to the Income Tax Officer as directed. Therefore, the CIT(E)'s rejection based on non-compliance was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the indexation benefit for the township sale should be allowed from FY 2008-09 as the property was earning rental income then. For the AIF units, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, as the valuation method was consistent and the loss was explained.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had explained the sources of unsecured loans by demonstrating that loans were taken from sons, Abhishek and Akhilesh, which were disclosed in earlier financial statements. The AO failed to consider the opening balance of unsecured loans from these sons.

The Tribunal held that once a substantive addition is confirmed in the hands of the partner, a protective addition in the hands of the firm should be deleted. The Revenue failed to pursue both matters concurrently.

The Tribunal condoned the 140-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's ill health and expired digital signature certificate. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) as the assessee had a valid reason due to a change in PAN. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits.