ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — October 2025

The Tribunal held that the assessee provided affidavits from relatives and bank statements to support the loan claim. The issue of the PAN number was also addressed, directing the new PAN to be used for all purposes. The additions made by the lower authorities were found to be unjustified.

The Tribunal found that the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) had misinterpreted the return of income, as the assessee had indeed debited various expenses such as freight, power, fuel, salary, wages, and depreciation, and also reported closing stock of finished goods. These facts proved that manufacturing activity had commenced during the year. Consequently, the impugned order of the Addl. CIT(A) was set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to allow the claim.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order of the CIT(A) was ex-parte and set it aside, restoring the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT (Appeals) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. This remand was conditional on the assessee depositing Rs. 10,000/- in the Prime Minister Relief Fund as costs, with failure to do so justifying dismissal of the appeal by the CIT (Appeals).

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the merits of the case. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit, ensuring a proper opportunity for the assessee to present their case.

The Tribunal noted that the revenue could not point out the specific reason for denial of the TDS claim. In similar cases, the matter has been restored to the Assessing Officer. Hence, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the compensation received by the assessee on voluntary retirement is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act. The Assessing Officer was directed to allow the exemption and provide relief under Section 89.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) set aside the impugned order of the CIT (Appeals) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The CIT (Appeals) was directed to provide a proper and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee, who in turn was advised to remain vigilant and check emails.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a plausible explanation for the delay after the counsel's death and did not demonstrate sufficient cause. The Tribunal found the assessee negligent in pursuing legal remedies.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a plausible explanation for the delay after the counsel's death and did not demonstrate sufficient cause. The Tribunal found the assessee negligent in pursuing legal remedies.

The Tribunal found no justification for the AO to estimate the agricultural income as the assessee had provided agreements for sale of produce and evidence of receipts through banking channels. The additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was invalid as it was exercised on the proposal of the AO and based on audit objections, not on independent application of mind. The assessment order was restored.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a plausible explanation for the delay after the counsel's death and did not demonstrate sufficient cause. The Tribunal found the assessee negligent in pursuing legal remedies.

The Tribunal held that rejection of an application solely for quoting an incorrect sub-clause in Form 10AB is unjustified, as Section 12AB provisions are benevolent and remedial, and minor procedural mistakes should not deprive a genuine charitable institution of registration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee has a right to be heard before an order is passed by the CIT(E). Since this opportunity was not provided, the case was remanded back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a plausible explanation for the delay after the counsel's death and did not demonstrate sufficient cause. The Tribunal found the assessee negligent in pursuing legal remedies.

The Tribunal held that the assessee has a right to be heard before an order is passed by the CIT(E). Since this was not done in the present case, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(E) to grant an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and then pass a fresh order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating on merits, violating the principles of natural justice. The order was therefore set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was bad in law as the Assessing Officer ought to have initiated proceedings under Section 153C, not Section 148, based on documents seized from a third party. The reopening under Section 148 was also found to be based on wrong reasons.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not file relevant documents before either the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the order passed by the Addl. CIT(A) was ex-parte. Considering the principles of natural justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal observed that the assessment was completed without affording the assessee an adequate opportunity to present submissions. Consequently, the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment (de novo), requiring the AO to provide due and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that protective additions made in the hands of an individual, when substantive additions have already been made in the hands of the company (a separate legal entity), are not sustainable in law. The AO failed to appreciate that a body corporate and an individual are distinct entities.

The Tribunal held that protective additions made in the hands of an individual, when substantive additions have already been made in the hands of the company (a separate legal entity), are not sustainable in law. The AO failed to appreciate that a body corporate and an individual are distinct entities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lenders for unsecured loans and the sources of partner's funds. The AO's rejection of these was deemed ill-founded.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D was mechanical and without due application of mind, as evidenced by the approval of multiple assessment orders in a single instance without detailed consideration. Consequently, the assessment orders were deemed unsustainable.

During the tribunal proceedings, the assessee demonstrated compliance with Rule 37BA(2) by filing declarations and getting the TDS reflected in the HUF's Form 26AS. Since this new evidence was not available to lower authorities, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for verification of these documents and to grant the TDS credit if compliance is confirmed.

The Tribunal condoned the 352-day delay in filing the appeal. Noting that both the assessment and first appeal were decided ex parte and the addition was presumptive, the Tribunal held that in the interest of substantial justice, the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The assessee is to be given adequate opportunity to present evidence and cooperate with the AO.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided credible evidence for the source of cash from genuine housing loan withdrawals and that the Department failed to show the funds were used elsewhere. Citing the Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment in Shivcharan Dass v. CIT, the Tribunal ruled that mere time lapse between withdrawal and deposit does not justify addition. Therefore, the addition was deleted to the extent of Rs. 27,45,000/-, restricting the unexplained cash to Rs. 3,00,000/-.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had himself found the services to be commission-based, not FTS, and the department had not appealed this finding. It held that commission paid to foreign agents for services rendered outside India, without any Permanent Establishment in India, is not taxable in India. Consequently, no TDS was applicable on such payments.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued by the JAO instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which is contrary to the scheme of faceless assessment mandated by Section 151A and the relevant notification. Therefore, the notice and subsequent assessment proceedings are vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D was mechanical and without proper application of mind, as evidenced by the approval of multiple assessment orders in a common format without specific consideration of each case's details. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D was mechanical and without proper application of mind, as evidenced by the approval of multiple assessment orders in a common format without specific consideration of each case's details. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D was mechanical and without proper application of mind, as evidenced by the approval of multiple assessment orders in a common format without specific consideration of each case's details. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D was mechanical and without proper application of mind, as evidenced by the approval of multiple assessment orders in a common format without specific consideration of each case's details. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that cash found during a search, admitted as a business receipt by a partner, should be taxed at normal rates and not under Section 115BBE. It also confirmed additions for unexplained stock but at normal tax rates, and upheld the deletion of additions for property purchases where no sale deed was registered, while confirming the advance amount.

The Tribunal held that cash found during a search, admitted as a business receipt by a partner, should be taxed at normal rates and not under Section 115BBE. It also confirmed additions for unexplained stock but at normal tax rates, and upheld the deletion of additions for property purchases where no sale deed was registered, while confirming the advance amount.

The Tribunal held that cash found during a search, admitted as a business receipt by a partner, should be taxed at normal rates and not under Section 115BBE. It also confirmed additions for unexplained stock but at normal tax rates, and upheld the deletion of additions for property purchases where no sale deed was registered, while confirming the advance amount.

The Tribunal held that cash found during a search, admitted as a business receipt by a partner, should be taxed at normal rates and not under Section 115BBE. It also confirmed additions for unexplained stock but at normal tax rates, and upheld the deletion of additions for property purchases where no sale deed was registered, while confirming the advance amount.

The Tribunal held that cash found during a search, admitted as a business receipt by a partner, should be taxed at normal rates and not under Section 115BBE. It also confirmed additions for unexplained stock but at normal tax rates, and upheld the deletion of additions for property purchases where no sale deed was registered, while confirming the advance amount.

The Tribunal held that cash found during a search, admitted as a business receipt by a partner, should be taxed at normal rates and not under Section 115BBE. It also confirmed additions for unexplained stock but at normal tax rates, and upheld the deletion of additions for property purchases where no sale deed was registered, while confirming the advance amount.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had himself found the services to be commission-based, not FTS, and the department had not appealed this finding. It held that commission paid to foreign agents for services rendered outside India, without any Permanent Establishment in India, is not taxable in India. Consequently, no TDS was applicable on such payments.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to interfere with the allowance of depreciation at 100%. Key factors considered were the assets being put to use for more than 180 days and the seller not claiming depreciation on them.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued by the JAO instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), which is contrary to the scheme of faceless assessment mandated by Section 151A and the relevant notification. Therefore, the notice and subsequent assessment proceedings are vitiated.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D was mechanical and without proper application of mind, as evidenced by the approval of multiple assessment orders in a common format without specific consideration of each case's details. Consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that cash found during a search, admitted as a business receipt by a partner, should be taxed at normal rates and not under Section 115BBE. It also confirmed additions for unexplained stock but at normal tax rates, and upheld the deletion of additions for property purchases where no sale deed was registered, while confirming the advance amount.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly set aside the assessment order and directed the AO to make a fresh assessment after providing a proper opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) mechanically dismissed the appeal without considering the proviso to Section 249(4)(b) of the Income Tax Act, which allows for exemption from pre-deposit on sufficient cause. The dismissal, without affording an opportunity to explain, violated principles of natural justice.

Citing High Court precedents, the Tribunal ruled that notices issued under Section 148 by the Jurisdictional AO after the CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022 are without jurisdiction. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings and order were declared void ab initio and quashed.

The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by the decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Pr.CIT v. Kangra Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., which ruled that Section 43D is retrospective and applies to co-operative banks for prior assessment years. Therefore, notional interest on NPAs not credited to the profit and loss account cannot be taxed until realized.