ITAT Chennai Judgments — June 2026

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the interest of justice, remanded the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present its case with supporting evidence.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to represent her case before the CIT(A) and, considering the request for another opportunity, decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in refusing to condone the delay, citing a High Court judgment that allows invoking appellate jurisdiction even after availing revisional jurisdiction. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus under Section 68 by furnishing cogent documentary evidence, including bank statements and ledger confirmations. The transactions were effected through banking channels and were adequately explained.

The ITAT condoned the 4-day delay in filing the appeal before the FAA, finding the reasons bona fide. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to pay costs.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating on merits. Since the assessee's contentions regarding submissions and additional evidence remained uncontroverted, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted the lack of assistance from the assessee before the CIT(E) and, in the interest of justice, granted one more opportunity. The CIT(E) was directed to dispose of the application after affording an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the assessee acted diligently in filing the appeal after the revision petition was withdrawn. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merits.

The ITAT condoned the 2-day delay in filing the present appeal and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) to consider the assessee's delay condonation petition afresh. The assessee was directed to file a detailed petition with day-to-day reasons.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was required to discuss the issues on merits, which was not done. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal, while deprecating the assessee's attitude, restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication in the interest of justice. This was granted as a last opportunity with a condition of paying costs.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was required to discuss the issues on merits, which was not done. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A) was not justified in treating the appeal as withdrawn, as the statute preserves the right of appeal even if VSV proceedings fail.

The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 for cash sales are not applicable to business sale proceeds and deleted the addition. It also found that the discrepancy in purchases was due to fluctuation differences on gold loans, not bogus purchases, and set aside the addition.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was required to discuss the issues on merits, which was not done. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to consider the delay condonation petition and adjudicate the issue on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was less than the revised monetary limit of Rs.60 lakhs for filing appeals by the Revenue, as per CBDT Circular No.09 of 2024. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and, in the interest of justice, remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to file supporting evidence, and the CIT(A) was instructed to adjudicate the issue on merits.

The tribunal condoned the delay and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted liberty to file supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that the utilization of the loan is irrelevant for claiming deduction under Section 57(iii) of the Act. The nexus between the borrowed funds and the interest income earned on deposits is what matters. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to a deduction of interest paid to the extent of interest income earned.

The Tribunal held that the DRP's direction to delete the transfer pricing adjustment for royalty and business support services was correct. The payments were made under agreements consistent with previous years, and the services were integral to the assessee's operations.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to dispose of appeals on merits, even if ex-parte, and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal observed the assessee's casual approach but believed in substantive adjudication over ex-parte assessment. It granted a final opportunity to the assessee to represent the case before the AO for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal found a violation of natural justice by the CIT(A) for not passing a speaking order and by the AO for passing an ex parte order. The assessment was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment after hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding merit in the assessee's submission that they were not aware of the proceedings due to improper communication. The CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 544 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on the assessee's affidavit, passport details, and wife's medical records. The Tribunal also admitted additional evidence and restored the issues to the AO for fresh examination.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) is duty-bound to dispose of an appeal on merits, even if it's ex-parte, and cannot dismiss it for non-prosecution. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, remitting the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits. This was due to the assessee's inability to respond to notices from the CIT(A) because of a change in employment.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals, noting the assessee's non-serious approach and failure to participate in proceedings. The penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) was upheld as it pertains to non-compliance with statutory notices and is not dependent on the outcome of the quantum appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity of being heard before the CIT(A) as the appeal was dismissed ex-parte. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, and directed the AO to follow jurisdictional High Court decisions regarding Section 80P.

The Tribunal observed the assessee's casual approach but believed in substantive adjudication over ex-parte assessment. It granted a final opportunity to the assessee to represent the case before the AO for a de novo assessment.

The ITAT held that the revisionary order passed under Section 263, which directed the withdrawal of Section 54 deduction, had attained finality. The AO's subsequent order was merely implementing these affirmed directions.

The Tribunal held that the first appellate authority wrongly dismissed the appeal in limine due to delay, without considering the merits and the procedural lapses. The intimation under section 143(1) was deemed liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal held that filing Form 10CCB is directory, not mandatory, and can be filed before assessment completion. The AO erred in denying the deduction as the assessee filed the return within the due date and the form was submitted before CPC.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's casual approach throughout the proceedings. While one appeal was dismissed, the other was allowed for statistical purposes to give the assessee a final opportunity to represent their case before the AO.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting the assessee's rural location and lack of in-house tax expertise. It was held that the assessee was prevented from effectively representing its case due to notices being sent electronically when postal communication was opted for.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), considering the assessee's cooperative behavior during assessment proceedings and the need for substantive justice. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to dispose of appeals on merits, even if ex parte, and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) as the assessee had sufficient cause. The Tribunal also noted that the Ld.CIT(A) had not decided the grounds of appeal on merits and set aside the order.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeals, noting the assessee's non-serious approach and failure to participate in proceedings. The penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) was upheld as it pertains to non-compliance with statutory notices and is not dependent on the outcome of the quantum appeal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Since the CIT(A) had not decided the grounds of appeal on merits, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's casual approach throughout the proceedings. While one appeal was dismissed, the other was allowed for statistical purposes to give the assessee a final opportunity to represent their case before the AO.

The Tribunal held that the requirement of filing the audit report along with the return of income is directory, not mandatory. Exemption u/s.11 cannot be denied for procedural lapses if substantive conditions are met, and the audit report was filed within the extended due date.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted all required documents and complied with the law. The CIT(E) had ignored the submitted documents while rejecting the application.

The Tribunal agreed that Section 115BBE at 60% was erroneously applied as the transactions predated its applicability. The calculated tax effect was below the threshold specified in the CBDT circular.

The Tribunal held that the DRP's direction to delete the transfer pricing adjustment for royalty and business support services was correct. The payments were made under agreements consistent with previous years, and the services were integral to the assessee's operations.

The Tribunal observed the assessee's casual approach but believed in substantive adjudication over ex-parte assessment. It granted a final opportunity to the assessee to represent the case before the AO for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to explain the delay before the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's casual approach but took a liberal view. It allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the Assessing Officer to decide the matter de novo, focusing on specific issues like property purchase, contractual payments, and TCS.