ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — September 2025

The Tribunal held that a fresh application for registration/approval is maintainable even if earlier applications were rejected for technical non-compliance, not on merits. The CIT(Exemptions) was directed to adjudicate the applications afresh on merits, providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete disallowances for Section 35AD and prior period expenses, citing judicial precedents. For the Assessee's appeal concerning interest on WIP, the Tribunal admitted new evidence and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete disallowances for Section 35AD and prior period expenses, citing judicial precedents. For the Assessee's appeal concerning interest on WIP, the Tribunal admitted new evidence and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that a fresh application for registration/approval is maintainable even if earlier applications were rejected for technical non-compliance, not on merits. The CIT(Exemptions) was directed to adjudicate the applications afresh on merits, providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the PCIT's order under section 263 was well-reasoned and that the assessee had not presented any rebuttal or contrary case law. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the PCIT's order.

The Tribunal held that an order passed in the name of a deceased person is non-est in law. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after impleading the legal representatives of the deceased assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that it was due to a bonafide error in interpreting the order and not a deliberate attempt to delay. The Tribunal found that the CIT had misconstrued the partnership deed and committed an error in branding the assessment order as erroneous on a minor issue.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the agricultural land was not a capital asset as it was beyond 5 km from Dharuhera and was used for agriculture. The claim of agricultural income was also rightly allowed.

The Tribunal noted that the sales were not doubted, implying purchases must have been made. Considering the hypothetical nature of the AO's estimation and the desire to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the Tribunal, with the consent of the assessee's counsel, reduced the addition from Rs.8,84,160/- to Rs.4,00,000/-.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's medical condition and the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The addition of Rs. 20,45,000/- was deleted, but the issue of salary assessment amounting to Rs. 10,72,056/- was remitted to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the purchase of land is merely a preparatory step and not the commencement of charitable activities. Therefore, the rejection of the assessee's application by the CIT(E) on technical grounds was not justified.

The Tribunal held that while the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. mandates timely deposit of employees' contribution, the scope of adjustments under section 143(1)(a) is limited to prima facie errors. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in withdrawing the registration based on old facts that had already been decided by the ITAT. The Tribunal restored the registration granted to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided complete details of the sale proceeds received by the father and deposited in a joint bank account. The assessee also submitted copies of sale deeds for land sold and purchased. The Tribunal held that the AO failed to verify the details properly and unnecessarily made the addition.

The Tribunal held that interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is to be treated as part of compensation and is not taxable. Furthermore, it is exempt under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act as the compensation was received after its incorporation.

The Tribunal held that the appeal lacked merit and confirmed the disallowance made by the lower authorities. Regarding the primary issue concerning the disallowance of employees' contribution to ESI/PF accounts, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to demonstrate that these contributions were paid within the due date. Consequently, the deduction could not be allowed as business expenditure. The Tribunal explicitly relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Checkmate Services P. Ltd. & Ors. VS. CIT & Ors. (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC) to uphold the disallowance. The Tribunal did not provide specific reasoning on the retrospective application of explanations or the club expenditure issue, implying these were subsumed by the overall dismissal of the appeal based on the primary ground. The operative direction was to confirm the order of the Addl. CIT(A) and dismiss the assessee's appeal.

The Tribunal held that while the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. binds authorities, the jurisdiction under section 143(1)(a) is limited to prima facie adjustments and cannot be used for debatable issues. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that while the Supreme Court decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. mandates timely deposit of employees' contribution, the scope of adjustments under section 143(1)(a) is limited to prima facie errors. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the assessee's application for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) was not justified. The primary reason for rejection by the CIT(E) was the failure to furnish a trust deed, as mandated by Rule 17A of the Income Tax Rules. However, the Tribunal noted that the assessee is a temple established and governed by the Himachal Pradesh Hindu Public Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1984 (HPPRICE). As per Section 35 of HPPRICE, the provisions of any other enactment governing charitable or religious trusts cease to apply once HPPRICE provisions are invoked. The assessee is a notified religious institution under this statute and is governed by its provisions, not a trust deed. Therefore, the requirement to furnish a trust deed does not apply. The Tribunal relied on the Hyderabad Tribunal's decision in Sri Seetharamachandra Swamy Temple vs. CIT(E), the Chandigarh Tribunal's decision in Temple Trust vs. CIT(E), and the Gujarat High Court's decision in Pr. CIT vs. Dawoodi Bohra Masjid, which held that the existence of a trust can be evidenced by documents other than a trust deed, especially when established under a statute. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to grant the registration. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Assessee sought withdrawal of the appeal as the issue involved in the original assessment proceedings had been settled under the Direct Tax Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020. The Ld. DR did not object to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority must adjudicate appeals on their merits and cannot dismiss them solely for want of prosecution. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication of all grounds, directing the assessee to cooperate and the CIT(A) to provide adequate opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was based on 'reasons to suspect' rather than 'reasons to believe' as there was no independent inquiry by the AO and no evidence of cash exchange. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were invalid.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, stating that dismissal for non-prosecution without adjudicating on merits is not sustainable. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication on merits, subject to the assessee paying costs.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee defaulted in complying with notices, the penalty was levied for three identical, recurring defaults. The AO could have completed the assessment after the initial notice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in the first appeal, citing principles of natural justice and potential communication gaps in the faceless regime. The impugned order was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the higher tax rate under Section 115BBE could not be justified as the notification prescribing it came into force after the survey and the surrender. Additionally, the AO had not disturbed the head of income. The AO was directed to accept the surrender as normal business income.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adhere to the mandatory procedure under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, which requires formulating points of dispute and recording reasons for the conclusion. Therefore, the ex-parte order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 is a procedural requirement and that the benefit of Foreign Tax Credit should be allowed even if the form is filed subsequently, citing various High Court and Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer for a fresh hearing, setting aside the impugned order. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication with a direction for the assessee to present its case.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the original assessment was on a best judgment basis and the assessee's submissions warranted a fresh assessment. It ruled that the CIT(A) had validly exercised its remand power under Section 251(1)(a) and found no infirmity in the order.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee provided substantial explanation for the deposits, the lack of complete corroboration and prior non-filer status warranted retaining a partial addition. Thus, the addition was restricted.

The Tribunal, considering principles of natural justice and the assessee's past litigations, granted another opportunity for hearing before the CIT(A) at a cost of Rs.10,000/-. The CIT(A) was directed to conduct a de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for another opportunity to be heard, citing principles of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for another opportunity to be heard, citing principles of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment under Section 148 was invalid due to incorrect reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noted that the AO's primary reason for reopening was the alleged failure of the assessee to file a return of income for AY 2011-12. However, the CIT(A) had correctly observed that the assessee had, in fact, filed its return of income, as acknowledged in the assessment order itself. The Tribunal further observed that the assessee had provided the purchase deed and explained the source of investment, which was also reflected in the audited balance sheet filed with the original return. The Tribunal relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in ITO Vs. Lakhmi Mewal Dass and the Bombay High Court in Ankita A. Choksey Vs. ITO, which emphasize that the reasons for reopening must be based on correct facts and that the AO must apply his mind independently. The Tribunal found that the AO had proceeded on a wrong foundation of facts, indicating a lack of application of mind and a mechanical approval process by the higher authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order quashing the reassessment proceedings and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal, considering principles of natural justice and the assessee's past litigations, granted another opportunity for hearing before the CIT(A) at a cost of Rs.10,000/-. The CIT(A) was directed to conduct a de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A)'s order in the name of the deceased might be technically flawed, it did not vitiate the entire proceedings, as the Assessing Officer's order predated the death. However, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention regarding the admission of additional evidence and the non-adjudication of legal grounds.

The Tribunal admitted the appeals, condoned the delay, and restored the quantum appeal for de novo assessment. The penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were collected by the assessee as an agent on behalf of the principal (DTM Pvt. Ltd.) and were promptly deposited into the company's account with proper reconciliation. Therefore, the addition was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s disposal of the appeal ex parte, without a specific notice for enhancement, violated the principles of natural justice. The order was set aside and the matter was remanded back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal admitted the appeals, condoned the delay, and restored the quantum appeal for de novo assessment. The penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 78 days in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation of adverse medical conditions faced by his daughter and mother. Regarding the addition of Rs. 55 Lacs, the Tribunal noted the assessee's submission of an agreement dated 26-10-2009 with Smt. Sushila Kumaran, demonstrating receipt of Rs. 50 Lacs through cheques duly credited to the assessee's bank account. The Tribunal observed that Smt. Sushila Kumaran subsequently sold the Noida property to another buyer via a sale agreement dated 04-01-2010, with the assessee merely acting as a confirming party. Based on this evidence, the Tribunal held that the source of investment to the extent of Rs. 55 Lacs stood substantiated. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 55 Lacs made by the AO under Section 69 was deleted, and the consequential denial of deduction under Section 54 was also set aside. The appeal was allowed. No other grounds were urged.

The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148, issued by the JAO instead of the FAO as per the scheme of faceless assessment, was liable to be quashed. The Tribunal quashed the notice, rendering other grounds academic.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence for the share transactions and that the amalgamation of companies was approved by the High Court after the Income Tax Department's no objection. The addition made on account of shares of DLC Exports Ltd. was also deleted for lack of evidence.

The Tribunal held that the cash payment was made out of business expediency, considering the dispute between the parties and the circumstances of the transaction. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO under Section 40A(3) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's accounting method did not prevent disallowance under Section 43B. However, the argument regarding the timing of GST payment (after Tax Audit but before the due date of return filing) was found to carry weight and was restored to the CIT(A) for verification.

The provided text does not contain any findings by the Tribunal on any issues. It does not record any reasoning that led to a decision, nor does it state any ratio decidendi. There are no operative directions such as remand or deletion, and no relief granted to any party is mentioned. Furthermore, no issues were expressly left undecided. The judgment fragment does not provide any substantive content regarding the Tribunal's adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the trust's primary objects were to provide food, health, and education, but a substantial amount was spent on prize and award distribution, which was not a specified object. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(E)'s finding that the activities were not aligned with the professed objects and that the funding from related entities for awards did not constitute charitable activity.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was valid, as the assessee failed to disclose the bank account and explain the source of cash deposits. However, on merits, it restored the issue to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to prove the source of deposits.

The Tribunal held that the higher tax rate of 60% under Section 115BBE is not applicable to transactions prior to April 1, 2017, as the survey occurred before this date and before the relevant amendment came into force. It directed the AO to apply normal tax rates to the surrendered income. The Tribunal also reduced the lump-sum disallowance from Rs. 5 Lacs to Rs. 2 Lacs, deleting the remaining Rs. 3 Lacs.