ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — July 2025

The Tribunal considered the assessee's prayer and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn due to the settlement of dispute under the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme'. It was clarified that the appeal could be revived if the assessee failed to avail the full benefit of the scheme due to technicalities.

The Tribunal set aside both rejection orders and restored the applications for re-adjudication by the CIT(E). The assessee is directed to cooperate with the ld. CIT(E) and provide the latest address for communication.

The Tribunal set aside both rejection orders and restored the applications for re-adjudication by the CIT(E). The assessee is directed to cooperate with the ld. CIT(E) and provide the latest address for communication.

The Tribunal held that the recharacterization of business income as 'income from other sources' was unsustainable, especially in the absence of incriminating material and with supporting evidence like GST-compliant invoices and bank receipts. The disallowance of business expenses was also found to be unjustified, considering the assessee's consistent engagement in business and previously accepted assessments.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's non-compliance was not satisfactory, the assessee should not be denied a chance to contest the addition on merits, especially given prior submissions. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication with a cost imposed.

The Tribunal held that the recharacterization of business income as 'income from other sources' was unsustainable, especially in the absence of incriminating material and with supporting evidence like GST-compliant invoices and bank receipts. The disallowance of business expenses was also found to be unjustified, considering the assessee's consistent engagement in business and previously accepted assessments.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the assessment to the file of the AO for de novo assessment. The assessee was given an opportunity to plead and prove its case, considering the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order, restoring the matter for fresh consideration, and granted the assessee another opportunity to be heard and prove its case, considering principles of natural justice and communication gaps in the faceless regime.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence in the form of a Customs order which had material bearing on the assessment. Consequently, all appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication in light of this new evidence.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence in the form of a Customs order which had material bearing on the assessment. Consequently, all appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication in light of this new evidence.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence in the form of a Customs order which had material bearing on the assessment. Consequently, all appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication in light of this new evidence.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence in the form of a Customs order which had material bearing on the assessment. Consequently, all appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication in light of this new evidence.

The Tribunal held that the processing of the return under Section 143(1) can be considered an assessment for the purpose of the proviso to Section 12A(2). The Tribunal reasoned that if the CIT(A)'s findings were accepted, the provisions of Section 12A read with its second proviso would become otiose in cases where no regular assessment proceedings under Section 143(3) are initiated. The Tribunal emphasized that provisions should be interpreted to uphold their spirit and intent. Therefore, on a conjoint reading of Section 143(1) and Section 12A(2), the Assessing Officer (AO) is empowered to consider the grant of registration under Section 12AA subsequent to the filing of the return. Since the CPC merely processes the return and cannot conduct further verification, the matter relating to the examination of the objects and activities of the assessee is set aside to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to examine the same after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and, if found to be the same, grant the necessary exemption under Sections 11 and 12. The Tribunal also noted that the addition made by the CPC indicates that the taxable liability was affected, and the assessee had not shown gross receipts as income but had claimed expenditure. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside. The issue of administrative expenses was relegated to the AO for determination.

The Tribunal held that the sale consideration for agricultural land was supported by a registered sale deed and hence the addition to that extent was unjustified. The Tribunal also accepted the claim for accumulation of past savings and agricultural income for the remaining addition.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly upheld the reopening of the assessment, finding that the AO had reasons to believe, not just reasons to suspect, that income had escaped assessment based on information from DDIT. The Tribunal also upheld the disallowance of the deduction as IMSRF was not notified under Section 35(1) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's reliance on counsel. It found that past savings and agricultural income could not be doubted and restricted the impugned addition to Rs. 3 Lacs, directing the AO to re-compute the income.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowance of interest under Section 36(1)(iii) based on prior year's order where sufficient own funds were available. The disallowance under Section 14A was deleted as no exempt income was earned. The TP adjustment for corporate guarantee was partly allowed by directing the AO to adopt an ALP rate of 0.5%. The set-off of brought forward losses was directed to be allowed as per law.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable before the Chandigarh Bench due to territorial jurisdiction lying with the Amritsar Bench. Furthermore, as the quantum additions were deleted, the penalties would not survive.

The tribunal held that the NFAC's order suffered from a violation of the principles of natural justice as it did not consider the assessee's written submissions and dismissed the appeal ex parte. The matter was therefore restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the legal grounds raised by the assessee regarding the validity of the notice under Section 148 and the jurisdiction of the AO were not adjudicated by the CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence in the form of a Customs order which had material bearing on the assessment. Consequently, all appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication in light of this new evidence.

The Tribunal held that the sale consideration for agricultural land was supported by a registered sale deed and hence the addition to that extent was unjustified. The Tribunal also accepted the claim for accumulation of past savings and agricultural income for the remaining addition.

The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and the assessee's plea, set aside the impugned order. The assessment was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment, allowing the assessee an opportunity to substantiate their case.

The Tribunal, considering principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime, decided to afford the assessee another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal set aside the impugned penalty order and restored the penalty proceedings to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This fresh adjudication is to be done after the finalization of the quantum assessment, which was previously remanded.

The Tribunal held that Section 194Q is an obligation on the payer and does not determine the taxability of the recipient's income. The assessee, acting as a commission agent, offered commission income, and the gross turnover did not constitute their real income. The TDS deducted was on behalf of the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable before the Chandigarh Bench due to territorial jurisdiction lying with the Amritsar Bench. Furthermore, as the quantum additions were deleted, the penalties would not survive.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, in view of the assessee's request. Liberty was granted to the assessee to challenge the rectification order passed by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue of approval to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal considered the submission that earlier registrations shall continue to be in force as per a Ministry of Home Affairs order.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer and dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal request.