ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — May 2026

The Tribunal noted the assessee's past registration and the potential existence of a valid MOU. It set aside the rejection order and restored the issue to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to present its case.

The Tribunal found that detailed factual verification was required for the issues involved. Therefore, both the Revenue's appeal and the Assessee's cross-objection were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering earlier Tribunal decisions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, admitting the appeal in the interest of natural justice. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, allowing the assessee to present and prove its case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's circumstances and the principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to present its case due to unavoidable circumstances and the principles of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's claim of agricultural income based on substantial land holdings and cash flow statements. The impugned addition of Rs. 41.90 Lacs was deleted.

The Tribunal held that penalty should not be levied multiple times for the same default. It restricted the penalty to Rs. 10,000, considering the deterrent nature of the provision.

The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable as no incriminating material was found from the assessee's possession, and the AO relied solely on third-party information without independent corroboration. The Tribunal also noted a violation of natural justice principles for not providing an opportunity for cross-examination.

The Tribunal considered the application for withdrawal filed by the assessee. The assessee requested to withdraw the current appeal as the matter had already been heard and decided.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of indexed cost of improvement was not justified without resorting to a valuation mechanism. It also held that the restriction of Section 54 deduction to 50% was incorrect as the assessee had invested her entire sale consideration in the new property.

The Tribunal found that the assessment was made ex-parte and the assessee's plea of dissolution and proprietary business needed factual verification. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessment proceedings and the appellate order lacked proper examination of evidence and explanations. To ensure substantial justice, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The ITAT held that the appeal was not maintainable as it was filed directly against the AO's order, bypassing the first appellate authority. The assessee was advised to file the appeal before the appropriate authority.

The Tribunal held that the slump sale transaction was genuine and governed by Section 50B, and the AO could not substitute the agreed consideration. It also upheld the deletion of disallowances under Section 36(1)(iii) and Section 14A, as the assessee had sufficient own funds and earned no exempt income, respectively.

The tribunal held that penalty proceedings are dependent on the sustenance of quantum additions. Since the quantum additions were deleted, the penalties could not stand independently and were therefore required to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have decided the application based on the material available on record, especially evidence of charitable activities. The matter was therefore remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was obligated to examine the assessee's replies and pass a reasoned order. Since the CIT(Appeals) failed to consider the available reply, the order was cryptic and unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have decided the application based on the material available on record, especially evidence of charitable activities. The matter was therefore remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's inability to effectively place evidence before the lower authorities. In the interest of substantial justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its claim.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, finding that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the disallowances for interest capitalization and Section 14A, as the assessee had sufficient own funds and no exempt income was earned. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding the capital loss.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s decision, finding that the assessee failed to provide evidence to justify payments to specified persons and demonstrate that such payments were reasonable or incidental to charitable activities.

The Tribunal held that running a Dharamshala at concessional rates for patients and attendants constitutes a charitable activity. It also found that establishing an Old Age Home is intrinsically charitable and that isolated expenditures for advertisement, without conclusive findings of commercial purpose, are insufficient to cancel registration.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and restored the issue of registration back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to present its case and prove it.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the principles of natural justice. The assessee was directed to plead and prove its case, with all issues kept open.

The Tribunal found that the bank account in question prima-facie belonged to Shri Atul Aggarwal, and its contents were already accounted for in his return. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, emphasizing that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The assessee was directed to file a proper condonation application with supporting documents.

The Tribunal held that running a Dharamshala at concessional rates for patients and attendants constitutes a charitable activity. It also found that establishing an Old Age Home is intrinsically charitable and that isolated expenditures for advertisement, without conclusive findings of commercial purpose, are insufficient to cancel registration.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with a final opportunity to substantiate their claims, adhering to the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal found that the issue required proper factual verification and examination of evidence. In the interest of substantial justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to plead and prove its case before the CIT(E).

The Tribunal found substance in the assessee's argument that a co-owner's explanation for half the investment was accepted. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee is a trust and principles of natural justice, held that the delay could have been condoned. Both impugned orders were set aside, and appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in restoring the matter to the AO for proper verification of the assessee's claim and fresh adjudication. The order of the CIT(A) was found to advance substantial justice.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 40A(3) as the expenditure was not claimed in the Profit & Loss Account. Additions under Section 68 were also deleted, finding that the cash available with the lender was sufficient and the lender had reflected the loans in her financial statements.

The Tribunal held that a return filed in response to a notice under Section 148 cannot be treated as a substitute for a return filed under Section 139 for the purpose of claiming fresh exemptions. Such claims, not made in the original proceedings, cannot be entertained during reassessment.

The Tribunal held that interest received on enhanced compensation is taxable under 'Income from Other Sources' in the year of receipt and is not exempt under Section 10(37). The decision followed a coordinate bench ruling on identical facts.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation of the business activity plausible and accepted the income offered on a presumptive basis. The addition for bank deposits was also deleted due to a marginal increase in the bank balance.

The Tribunal held that a return filed in response to a notice under Section 148 cannot be treated as a substitute for a return filed under Section 139 for the purpose of claiming fresh exemptions. Such claims, not made in the original proceedings, cannot be entertained during reassessment.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no prejudice to the Revenue. It agreed that restoring the matter to the AO for denovo adjudication was in the interest of substantial justice.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee is a trust and principles of natural justice, held that the delay could have been condoned. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that a return filed in response to a notice under Section 148 cannot be treated as a substitute for a return filed under Section 139 for the purpose of claiming fresh exemptions. Such claims, not made in the original proceedings, cannot be entertained during reassessment.

The Tribunal noted that both the assessment and the first appellate order were passed substantially ex parte. To ensure substantial justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to re-adjudicate the case after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal, noting the assessee's failure to effectively present evidence before lower authorities, granted one more opportunity for substantiation. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that interest received on enhanced compensation is taxable under section 56(2)(viii) in the year of receipt and is not exempt under section 10(37). The lower authorities' decision was upheld.

The Tribunal held that interest received on enhanced compensation is taxable under 'Income from Other Sources' in the year of receipt, and only statutory deductions under Section 57(iv) are permissible. This decision followed a previous binding precedent.

The Tribunal held that the issue requires deeper factual and legal examination by the Assessing Officer, considering the nature of FCCB transactions and the regulatory framework. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the addition could not be sustained solely on the basis of third-party information without independent inquiry or corroborative evidence. Following a coordinate bench decision, the addition was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the issue requires deeper factual and legal examination by the Assessing Officer, considering the nature of FCCB transactions and the regulatory framework. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.