ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — December 2025

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was invalid as it was based on a change of opinion without any new tangible material and the assessee had disclosed all material facts during the original assessment. Furthermore, on merits, the electrical installations were considered integral to the plant and machinery and eligible for the claimed depreciation and additional depreciation.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by previous orders of the Coordinate Bench and other similar cases where similar additions were deleted. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not liable to be sustained.

The Tribunal found that the very basis of the assessment reopening and the addition for unexplained investment had been previously deleted by the CIT(A) and confirmed by the ITAT in related cases concerning M/s Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. Concluding that the issue was covered by prior judgments and had attained finality, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's cross-objection and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal condoned the 42-day delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's explanation of bona fide reasons. The Tribunal noted that the reopening was based on audit information and the issue involved verification of due dates for employee contributions. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal observed a consistent pattern of non-appearance by the assessee despite multiple notices and opportunities over a decade. Citing the principle that law aids the vigilant, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution due to the assessee's lack of diligence and continued absence.

The Tribunal set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The AO is directed to provide a fresh opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain the source of SBN deposits, with the assessee directed to cooperate. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the mandatory requirements of Section 65B of the Evidence Act were not complied with by the Revenue. It was also noted that taxing the entire gross profit without considering indirect expenses is unrealistic. The Tribunal decided to restrict the addition to 50% of the amount sustained by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's negligence was apparent, penalizing without a hearing on merits, especially given the high demand, goes against principles of natural justice. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

The assessee's counsel submitted an application to withdraw the present appeal, stating that another appeal on the same matter was already pending. The Ld. Sr. DR did not object to the withdrawal, and consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the dismissal on technical grounds denied the assessee an effective opportunity to be heard. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering the ex-parte assessment and the substantial addition.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in ignoring the availability of cash-in-hand from recorded withdrawals. The assessee had withdrawn a total of Rs. 32,50,000/- for a cousin's marriage, which took place shortly after the withdrawals. The demonetization announcement altered the utility of these cash holdings, making redeposit plausible.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee was persistent in failing to respond to notices, the submission regarding incorrect email service for appellate notices carried weight. The addition of gross agricultural receipts as unexplained money without factual verification was a significant grievance. Principles of natural justice require giving the assessee a final opportunity to substantiate claims.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's quantum appeal for the same assessment year had already been restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Recognizing that the outcome of the quantum appeal would directly impact the impugned penalties, the Tribunal restored these penalty appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication based on the outcome of the quantum appeal.

The Tribunal held that the outcome of the quantum appeal would have a material bearing on the impugned penalties. Therefore, all three penalty appeals were restored back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with the issue of consequential penalties to be decided in light of the outcome of the quantum appeal, and were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal was restored for fresh adjudication, the appeals concerning the consequential penalties should also be restored to the CIT(A) for a similar fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the outcome of the quantum appeal while adjudicating the penalties.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should not be penalized for the mistakes of its previous counsel and granted the assessee one final opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal held that the interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of the enhanced compensation and is eligible for exemption under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act. The PCIT's order was not sustainable as the AO had made a proper inquiry and had accepted one of the possible views.

The Tribunal held that the interest received under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act is part of enhanced compensation and exempt under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act. The PCIT's order, based on an audit objection and overlooking Supreme Court judgments, was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order was not sustainable. The AO had made proper enquiries and accepted one of the possible views on a debatable issue. The dismissal of an SLP by the Supreme Court does not constitute a binding precedent.

The Tribunal admitted the appeal, condoned the delay, and restored the issue of registration to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to present its case properly.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to provide cogent evidence that any part of the payment was made in cash. Since the prerequisite of making a payment in cash or by cheque was not proven, the obligation to deduct TDS did not arise. The assessment order and the appellate order were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the Miscellaneous Applications were filed within two months of the order's receipt/dispatch and were therefore maintainable. The Tribunal also noted that the original appeals were dismissed by the Bench, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT Vs. AbhisarBuildwell Private Limited, but inadvertently omitted to grant liberty to reopen assessment under Section 147/148.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s estimation of 50% of cash being spent on household expenses was arbitrary. While acknowledging that the purchase dates back to 2014 and no invoices were found, the Tribunal found the proven cash withdrawals sufficient to cover the purchase of 840 grams. The addition was restricted to 100 grams, valuing it at Rs. 4,89,000/-.

The Tribunal held that the amount of Rs. 1,25,00,000/-, withdrawn and redeposited on the same day and subsequently used for purchasing property, was adequately explained and verifiable from bank statements. Therefore, the addition of this amount was deleted.

The Tribunal held that considering the assessee's high income and lifestyle, it is plausible to receive gifts and have past savings. Thus, the addition of Rs.1,13,300/- was unwarranted and should be deleted, as the assessee had explained the source.

The Tribunal held that interest earned on FDRs invested from business dues transferred to personal accounts is 'Income from Other Sources' and not 'Business Income'. It also held that legal expenses are not deductible under Section 37, and indexation benefits are not applicable to such interest income.

The Tribunal held that interest on FDRs earned by an individual, distinct from the contracting entity, is not business income and should be taxed under 'Income from Other Sources'. Deductions for legal expenses were denied, and indexation benefits for interest income were not allowed.

The Tribunal held that interest earned on FDRs by an individual, even if the funds originated from a business award, is 'Income from Other Sources' and not 'Business Income'. It also held that indexation benefits are not applicable to such interest income. The addition of salary income was deleted as the return itself was treated as non-est by the Revenue.

The Tribunal found unresolved factual aspects regarding the validity of reassessment, the non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2), and the conflicting claims about evidence submission. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.

The CIT(A) upheld the AO's order, ruling that post-Finance Act 2009, Section 56(2)(viii) specifically taxes such interest as "Income from Other Sources," subject to the Section 57(iv) deduction. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on a precedent which established that such interest is taxable under Section 56(2)(viii) and Section 145B(1), and Section 10(37) is not applicable to the interest component.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order was unsustainable on the issues of discrepancy in professional/technical fees, outstanding credit from District Magistrate, notional interest, and reconciliation of sales with Form 26AS, as these were examined by the AO. However, the Tribunal upheld the PCIT's order regarding the verification of stock valuation.

The Tribunal held that interest on enhanced compensation is taxable as revenue income, following the ratio of Supreme Court and High Court judgments. The Bench affirmed that such interest falls under Section 56(2)(viii) and is taxable in the year of receipt, rejecting the applicability of Section 10(37).

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument regarding the violation of natural justice, as the CIT(E) allegedly relied on third-party information without confronting the assessee. The impugned order was set aside to provide a fair opportunity for adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have made all efforts to serve notice on the assessee at the given address, and failure to do so violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the case was remanded back.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) relied on third-party information without confronting the assessee and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee a fair opportunity to present its case.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that the assessee was an admitted non-resident, making her an "eligible assessee" under Section 144C(15)(b). The Tribunal ruled that the issuance of a draft assessment order under Section 144C is mandatory, and its non-issuance constitutes a fatal jurisdictional defect, rendering the final assessments void ab initio. Consequently, the assessments were quashed without examining the merits of the additions.

The Tribunal noted that the basis of the penalty (quantum addition) was under remand. Therefore, it was deemed appropriate to remand the penalty proceedings as well, to be decided after the quantum appeal's decision.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had failed to take into account the remand report and the documents filed by the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to call for fresh evidence, obtain a remand report from the AO, and then decide the issue.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee was negligent in pursuing the appeal before the CIT(A), the right of appeal is a statutory right and the principle of Audi Alteram Partem should be followed. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.