ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — July 2025

The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 were jurisdictionally invalid and time-barred because they were issued manually in violation of CBDT notifications mandating automated allocation. Consequently, the reassessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not providing the assessee with an opportunity for a personal hearing, which is a statutory obligation. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for this purpose.

The Tribunal held that Section 194Q provisions do not determine taxability but impose an obligation on the payer for TDS on high-value purchases. The assessee acted as a commission agent and offered commission income, and full TDS credit should be allowed.

The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, was of the opinion that the delay should have been condoned. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, with the condition that the issue of delay would not be raised.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the assessment back to the file of the AO for a de novo assessment. The Tribunal directed the assessee to plead and prove its case forthwith, considering the principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime.

The Tribunal held that the entire compensation received on closure of the undertaking, even if styled as VRS, is exempt under Section 10(10B), following previous precedents. The relief under Section 89(1) was revised accordingly.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, setting aside the CIT(E)'s ex-parte order and restoring the matter for fresh adjudication. Appeals arising from subsequent fresh applications were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, setting aside the CIT(E)'s ex-parte order and restoring the matter for fresh adjudication. Appeals arising from subsequent fresh applications were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, setting aside the CIT(E)'s ex-parte order and restoring the matter for fresh adjudication. Appeals arising from subsequent fresh applications were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting the lack of objection from the Ld. DR and the substantial grounds raised by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the assessee's grievance was primarily about ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(E) without proper hearing, which is against the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, setting aside the CIT(E)'s ex-parte order and restoring the matter for fresh adjudication. Appeals arising from subsequent fresh applications were dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting the lack of objection from the Ld. DR and the substantial grounds raised by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the assessee's grievance was primarily about ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(E) without proper hearing, which is against the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting the lack of objection from the Ld. DR and the substantial grounds raised by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the assessee's grievance was primarily about ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(E) without proper hearing, which is against the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal upheld the revision of the order. It found that the AO had failed to make requisite inquiries regarding the assessee's bank account which reflected payments to the assessee's own proprietorship, and this had a bearing on the determination of income.

The Tribunal held that for Assessment Year 2015-16, the assessee had complied with the statutory requirements of Section 194C(6) by obtaining declarations and PANs. The law did not mandate factual verification beyond the declaration, and subsequent amendments or notifications could not be applied retrospectively.

The Tribunal held that the assessee-university was established for educational purposes, solely under state legislation, and operated under the overall control of the State Government. Funds provided by the government for infrastructure and the retention of fees were considered constructive grants, fulfilling the conditions for exemption.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting the lack of objection from the Ld. DR and the substantial grounds raised by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the assessee's grievance was primarily about ex-parte orders passed by the CIT(E) without proper hearing, which is against the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without considering the merits or providing a proper hearing. Upholding natural justice, the Tribunal remanded the case to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee receives a due opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was indeed made under Section 144, read with Section 145(3), constituting a best judgment assessment. Therefore, the CIT(A) was empowered to remand the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment as per the newly inserted proviso to Section 251(1)(a).

The Tribunal held that the entire compensation received on closure of the undertaking, even if styled as VRS, is exempt under Section 10(10B), following previous precedents. The relief under Section 89(1) was revised accordingly.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the technical dismissal by the CIT(A) for non-compliance with Section 249(4)(b), the Tribunal found that the substantive issues were not adjudicated on merits. Therefore, the assessment order and the appellate order were set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, primarily networking between doctors and pharma companies and promoting their products, were not for the benefit of the community but for private individuals. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(E)'s observation that the activities were unethical and contrary to public policy, thus not qualifying as 'charitable purposes' under Section 2(15).

The Tribunal held that the entire compensation received on closure of the undertaking, even if styled as VRS, is exempt under Section 10(10B), following previous precedents. The relief under Section 89(1) was revised accordingly.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had inadvertently filed the appeal in Chandigarh instead of Delhi and had already secured a favorable decision in Delhi. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal application.

The Tribunal held that the purchases were genuine and supported by valid documents, including banking transactions and GST records. The AO and CIT(A) had accepted the documentary evidence, making the disallowance unjustified.

The Tribunal acknowledged the genuine personal tragedy that hampered the assessee's ability to respond. It was held that the assessee should have been granted a final reasonable opportunity to comply with the requisitions, adhering to principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the addition could not be made solely on the basis of an estimate or a purported agreement to sell when registered sale deeds existed and the seller denied the transaction. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the purchases were genuine and supported by valid documents, including banking transactions and GST records. The AO and CIT(A) had accepted the documentary evidence, making the disallowance unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the surrendered amount, offered voluntarily during a survey and stated to be part of the business income, should be taxed as normal business income. The Tribunal relied on various High Court and ITAT judgments where similar situations were treated as business income.

The Tribunal acknowledged the genuine personal tragedy that hampered the assessee's ability to respond. It was held that the assessee should have been granted a final reasonable opportunity to comply with the requisitions, adhering to principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the three-day delay in filing the appeal. It observed that the Ld. CIT(E) rejected the registration application without making findings on the merits. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Ld. CIT(E) to decide the application for registration under Section 12A afresh, after providing the assessee a due opportunity of hearing and considering all relevant documents.

The Tribunal held that furnishing the audit report is a procedural requirement, and a delay should not lead to the denial of exemption, especially for a long-standing charitable institution. The delay in filing Form 10B was condoned.

The Tribunal held that reopening and taxing income in the hands of a dissolved firm, whose PAN was erroneously linked to bank accounts operated by the sole proprietorship, would amount to double taxation. The assessment against a non-existent entity is void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that there was no conclusive evidence of service of notices on the assessee. The rejection of the application without granting an effective opportunity violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Ld. CIT(E) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should have been given a final and reasonable opportunity to comply, considering the genuine personal tragedy faced by the AR and the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to present its case due to unfortunate circumstances and partial compliance. The matter is remanded back to the CIT(E) for a final opportunity.

The Tribunal held that there was no conclusive evidence of service of notices on the assessee. The rejection of the application without granting an effective opportunity violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Ld. CIT(E) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the issue for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to plead its case under the correct clause.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and acknowledged the genuine personal tragedy faced by the assessee's representative, which hampered timely compliance. The Tribunal held that the assessee should have been granted a final reasonable opportunity to comply.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was unable to furnish documents due to a genuine personal tragedy and ought to have been granted a reasonable opportunity. The impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the rejection based on illogical reasoning and non-maintainability was incorrect. The applications ought to have been considered on merits.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) had duly enquired into the issue of capital gains during both the original and reassessment proceedings. The AO had applied his mind to the issue, and therefore, the revisionary order passed by the Pr. CIT was not justified.

The Tribunal held that while the AO had issued notices and received explanations, the record did not demonstrate any independent verification or inquiry into the genuineness of the transaction, the nature of services, or the creditworthiness of the payer. Mere production of a bank statement evidencing repayment after several years does not establish the genuineness of the initial receipt, especially when corroborative documentary evidence like a formal agreement or contemporaneous communication was lacking. The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's contention that the AO failed to make due inquiries, particularly given the substantial amount, the significant delay in repayment, and the affidavit relating to only a part of the amount in a different assessment year. This failure renders the assessment order erroneous in law. Following the principle that a lack of or inadequate inquiry empowers the Commissioner to invoke Section 263, as held in DG Housing Projects Ltd., the Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order. The assessment order dated March 21, 2022, was set aside, and the AO was directed to conduct a fresh assessment after necessary inquiries into the nature, source, and genuineness of the transaction, passing a speaking order after affording the assessee an adequate opportunity. The appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the rejection based on illogical reasoning and non-maintainability was incorrect. The applications ought to have been considered on merits.

The Tribunal held that the genuineness of activities could not be ascertained in the absence of any commencement of activities. Therefore, the rejection of registration by the CIT(E) was justified.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's plea that documents filed during the first appeal were not considered by the CIT(A) and granted another opportunity to substantiate its case. Citing a High Court decision, the ITAT set aside the impugned orders for both assessment years and restored the appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's plea that documents filed during the first appeal were not considered by the CIT(A) and granted another opportunity to substantiate its case. Citing a High Court decision, the ITAT set aside the impugned orders for both assessment years and restored the appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits based on available material, which was not done. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, providing the assessee with adequate opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay without considering the merits. The Tribunal found that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were unwarranted and unsubstantiated.

The Tribunal noted the delay in the first appeal and the principles of natural justice. Considering potential communication gaps in the faceless regime, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.