ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — April 2026

The Tribunal held that the PCIT lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate the renewal application and that the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction. Consequently, the order of the PCIT was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the denial of the benefit of Section 11 and 12 by the CPC and the CIT(A) was erroneous. The Tribunal noted that the benefit of Section 11 and 12 is available to societies and trusts carrying out charitable purposes, and the genuineness of the assessee's activities and procedural compliance for Section 12A registration were not in dispute. The primary issue was the PAN mismatch, which stemmed from the Revenue's failure to allot the correct PAN category to the assessee initially. The Tribunal considered this a case of contributory negligence, where the Revenue erred in allotting the wrong PAN and accepting returns for decades, and the assessee, upon noticing the error, applied for a new PAN. The Tribunal emphasized that such a minor error should not result in a substantial tax liability. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) and CPC were set aside, and the issues were remitted to the Assessing Officer (AO) for re-adjudication. The AO was directed to place the record before the Competent Authority/CBDT for amalgamation of PANs or rectification of the error. The benefit of Section 11 and 12 should not be denied during the re-processing of the return solely due to the PAN mismatch. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal found that the cancellation was made largely on technical grounds without a comprehensive evaluation of facts and evidence. The additional grounds raised by the assessee regarding the applicability of legal provisions and the validity of proceedings required proper examination.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient reasons for the assessee's inability to file the appeal in time. The appeal was then decided on its merits.

The Tribunal held that the denial of the benefit of Section 11 and 12 by the CPC and the CIT(A) was erroneous. The Tribunal noted that the benefit of Section 11 and 12 is available to societies and trusts carrying out charitable purposes, and the genuineness of the assessee's activities and procedural compliance for Section 12A registration were not in dispute. The primary issue was the PAN mismatch, which stemmed from the Revenue's failure to allot the correct PAN category to the assessee initially. The Tribunal considered this a case of contributory negligence, where the Revenue erred in allotting the wrong PAN and accepting returns for decades, and the assessee, upon noticing the error, applied for a new PAN. The Tribunal emphasized that such a minor error should not result in a substantial tax liability. Therefore, the orders of the CIT(A) and CPC were set aside, and the issues were remitted to the Assessing Officer (AO) for re-adjudication. The AO was directed to place the record before the Competent Authority/CBDT for amalgamation of PANs or rectification of the error. The benefit of Section 11 and 12 should not be denied during the re-processing of the return solely due to the PAN mismatch. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the rent disallowance was unsustainable as the amendment was supported by owner's confirmation and payments were through banking channels. Additions for sundry creditors were deleted due to lack of independent enquiry by the AO and the loan addition was deleted as the assessee demonstrated the amount was outstanding from an associated entity.

The Tribunal held that the partnership firm was not in existence during the relevant assessment year, as evidenced by the dissolution deed and bank certificate. The deposits were found to be part of the proprietorship concern's regular books of accounts, and therefore, the addition made to the non-existent firm was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the assessment was completed under Section 144 and the appellate order was passed ex-parte without effective representation. In the interest of justice, the assessee is granted one more opportunity to substantiate the claim with proper evidence.

The Tribunal held that while the purchases were bogus, the assessee likely acquired material from the grey market to earn unaccounted profits, given its sales turnover and audited stock position. Therefore, a profit margin of 5% on the impugned purchases was estimated as the addition.

The Tribunal held that the rent disallowance was unsustainable as the amendment was supported by owner's confirmation and payments were through banking channels. Additions for sundry creditors were deleted due to lack of independent enquiry by the AO and the loan addition was deleted as the assessee demonstrated the amount was outstanding from an associated entity.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits, especially when the assessee raised grounds regarding violation of natural justice due to improper notice service. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, adhering to principles of natural justice, granted the assessee another opportunity for hearing. The impugned orders were set aside, and the applications were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal observed that the assessment was framed ex-parte and the CIT(A) upheld it without adjudicating on merits. In the interest of natural justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s approach of estimating income based on past business results of a different nature was flawed. The Tribunal also noted issues with the Section 68 addition and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order without considering the assessee's submissions and failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. The impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the reconciliation statements and supporting evidence submitted by the assessee were not properly examined by the lower authorities. The CIT(A)'s findings were general and lacked specific adjudication on the accounting treatment of the receipts.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned from surplus funds with the cooperative bank is to be assessed as income from other sources. Consequently, no deduction is available to the assessee under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) or the alternative claim under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal held that the existence of a valid registration under section 12AA for the relevant assessment year is crucial for the sustainability of the penalty. Since this aspect was not properly examined by the CIT(A), the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirement of filing appeals before the lower appellate authority. However, in the interest of natural justice, one more opportunity was granted to the assessee to file appeals before the CIT(A) with a condonation of delay application.

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) found the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue as the AO failed to conduct proper inquiries into the nature and taxability of the receipt. The Tribunal upheld the PCIT's finding.

The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, granted the assessee another opportunity to present its case. The impugned orders were set aside, and the applications were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that profit on sale of depreciable assets is statutorily deemed to be short-term capital gains under Section 50. Such capital gains cannot be merged with business income or loss and cannot be adjusted against business loss for carry forward purposes.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirement of filing appeals before the lower appellate authority. However, in the interest of natural justice, one more opportunity was granted to the assessee to file appeals before the CIT(A) with a condonation of delay application.

The Tribunal found that the reconciliation statements and supporting evidence submitted by the assessee were not properly examined by the lower authorities. The CIT(A)'s findings were general and lacked specific adjudication on the accounting treatment of the receipts.

The Tribunal held that the receipts from the sale of fly ash are business income and taxable. It reasoned that income accrues at the point of sale, and subsequent earmarking for a fund or restrictions on utilization do not alter its taxability. Accounting treatment cannot override the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the receipts from the sale of fly ash are business income and taxable. It reasoned that income accrues at the point of sale, and subsequent earmarking for a fund or restrictions on utilization do not alter its taxability. Accounting treatment cannot override the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the issue of late payment of PF and ESI has been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Following this decision, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal held that the issue of late payment of PF and ESI has been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Following this decision, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal found that the additional evidence might substantiate the sources of investment. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the AO was directed to frame a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned from surplus funds with the cooperative bank is to be assessed as income from other sources. Consequently, no deduction is available to the assessee under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) or the alternative claim under Section 80P(2)(d).

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) confirmed the addition without confronting documents to the assessee and that the assessee's request for a virtual hearing was not granted. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the matter was remanded.

The Tribunal held that interest on enhanced compensation is taxable. However, regarding the capital gain, the Tribunal found that the nature of the land (agricultural or not) required further factual verification.

The Tribunal held that taxability of interest on compensation is contingent upon actual receipt. Mere reflection in Form 26AS or TDS credit is not conclusive proof of receipt when disputed by the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. It restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to plead and prove its case.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's business activities and the possibility of proving the source of deposits, decided to set aside the impugned order. The case is restored to the AO for a fresh assessment, allowing the assessee to present its case.

The Tribunal held that the addition cannot be sustained solely on the basis of third-party digital data without independent corroboration or establishing a direct nexus with the assessee. Reliance on suspicion without proof and denial of cross-examination are unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings were vitiated due to a defective show cause notice that did not specify the exact charge under Section 271(1)(c). Furthermore, on merits, the disallowance was found to be a debatable issue, and making an unsustainable claim does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in the assessee's appeal, finding no malafide intention and considering it a bonafide mistake by the professional. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s deletion of the disallowance of commission expenses.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the issue for fresh consideration. This was because the grounds for rejection were not properly confronted to the assessee during the proceedings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in the assessee's appeal, finding no malafide intention and considering it a bonafide mistake by the professional. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s deletion of the disallowance of commission expenses.

The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's casual approach and non-compliance, restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. This was done to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case, subject to payment of a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to plead and prove its case, subject to a cost.

The Tribunal condoned the substantial delay of 342 days, considering the principles of substantial justice and potential communication issues in faceless proceedings. However, a cost of Rs. 5,000 was imposed on the assessee. The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any documentary evidence or supporting details before any of the authorities. Without such material, the contentions could not be accepted solely on oral submissions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any documentary evidence or supporting details before any of the authorities. Without such material, the contentions could not be accepted solely on oral submissions.

The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to plead and prove its case, subject to a cost deposit.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had correctly examined the evidences submitted by the assessee, including cash book, sales registers, and RTO registrations, which established that the cash deposits of Rs. 1,75,18,000/- were from the sale of tractors to farmers and were accounted for. The AO had not pointed out specific defects in these evidences and had not conducted further inquiries during the remand proceedings. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 4,08,15,150/- was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the original assessment order under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 was set aside by the NFAC to the Assessing Officer for re-examination. Consequently, the subsequent order under Section 154 r.w.s. 147 also ceased to survive and the appeal against it became infructuous.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide compliance before both the AO and CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities. However, considering the request for another opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited by the assessee. The assessee was directed to make proper compliance before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that since the sale deed was declared void by the Civil Court due to fraud and non-payment of consideration, and no evidence of receiving sale proceeds was produced, the addition on account of capital gains, even on a protective basis, was not justified. The Tribunal also noted that the Assessing Officer failed to allow deduction for the cost of acquisition.