ITAT Guwahati Judgments — August 2026

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2018-19, finding that the assessee failed to reconcile the disputed figures with the AO and CIT(A). The Tribunal agreed with the lower authorities that the commission income was not sufficiently explained or accounted for.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without hearing the assessee and without deciding all grounds of appeal. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing a hearing opportunity.

The Tribunal noted that the application for registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) was rejected because the assessee had no registration under section 12A/12AA prior to 01.04.2021. However, the Tribunal also considered the assessee's submission that a wrong code was selected in Form No. 10AB, which led to the rejection of the application for conversion of provisional registration into final registration. The Tribunal found that the issue of a clerical mistake in selecting the wrong clause in the application needed further examination. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the learned CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to file a correct Form 10AB under the correct code and inform the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to decide the issue as per law after considering the correct Form 10AB and requisite documents. The issue of violation of natural justice was not expressly decided but implicitly addressed by remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2018-19, finding that the assessee failed to reconcile the disputed figures with the AO and CIT(A). The Tribunal agreed with the lower authorities that the commission income was not sufficiently explained or accounted for.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including ledger extracts and financial statements, to substantiate the unsecured loans. The AO had not properly verified the information provided by the assessee, and the addition was based solely on the statement of an entry operator without corroborating evidence.

The Tribunal held that the transfer of the assessee's case was without jurisdiction as the JCIT lacked the power to transfer it under Section 127 and no opportunity was granted to the assessee. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed, rendering the subsequent penalty order non-est.

The Tribunal held that the transfer of the assessee's case was without jurisdiction as the JCIT lacked the power to transfer it under Section 127 and no opportunity was granted to the assessee. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed, rendering the subsequent penalty order non-est.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back. The assessee is granted liberty to file a condonation of delay application, which the CIT(A) must consider before deciding the appeal.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back. The assessee is given liberty to file a condonation application for the delay, which the CIT(A) should consider before deciding the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2018-19, finding that the assessee failed to reconcile the disputed figures with the AO and CIT(A). The Tribunal agreed with the lower authorities that the commission income was not sufficiently explained or accounted for.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, finding that the additions were made on the basis of investigation reports without proper cross-verification and that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence. The cross-objections regarding reopening were dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to substantiate its claim for Section 80IE deduction and provide details for car depreciation. The Tribunal agreed that late fees and interest on TDS are not eligible expenditures as they arise from violations of law.

The Tribunal held that income offered under Section 41(1) as remission of liability from bogus creditors, which was admitted as undisclosed income during search, is not eligible for deduction under Section 80IE. The CIT(A)'s order allowing the deduction was reversed.

The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s decision to not condone the delay, stating that the assessee had not provided sufficient cause. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed without considering the merits of the exemption claim.

The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s decision to not condone the delay, stating that the assessee had not provided sufficient cause. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed without considering the merits of the exemption claim.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions, finding that the additions were made on the basis of investigation reports without proper cross-verification and that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence. The cross-objections regarding reopening were dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the gratuity is indeed exempt income. However, since the assessee offered it as income and did not revise the return, the rectification application was not considered valid. The appeal was dismissed, but the assessee was directed to file an application under Section 119(2)(b) before the competent authority.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and remitted the matters back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. The penalty proceedings were also remitted back as they are consequential to the quantum appeal.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and remitted the matters back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. The penalty proceedings were also remitted back as they are consequential to the quantum appeal.

The Tribunal noted that no agreement for the loan was produced and the assessee was not given an opportunity for cross-examination. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the donations received from BCCI, as evidenced by BCCI Resolutions, constituted corpus donations eligible for exemption under Section 11(1)(d). A specific written direction for each contribution was not necessary.

The Tribunal found that the appeal for AY 2026-27 was infructuous as the approval for that year was already included in a subsequent certificate. However, the rejection order for the earlier period was quashed as it was superseded by the later approval.

The Tribunal held that the initiation of proceedings under Section 148 was bad in law as it should have been under Section 153C, given the search conducted. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the loan had been repaid and sufficient evidence was provided to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the lender.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. The assessee will be granted an opportunity to be heard and present their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding the assessee's explanation for the delay to be sufficient. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's director's health issues. Considering the lack of proper opportunity before the lower authorities, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that since the reopening was solely based on material found during a search on a third party, the assessment proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153C, not Section 148. Therefore, the notice issued under Section 148 and the subsequent assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that when the basis for reassessment is solely derived from incriminating material found during a third-party search, the assessment proceedings must be initiated under Section 153C, not Section 148. Since the assessment was based entirely on the Dishman Group search, the notice under Section 148 and the subsequent assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal set aside the addition related to commission income under Section 40A(3) and remanded it to the AO for re-adjudication. The issue of unexplained cash balance under Section 68 was also remanded to the AO for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that when the basis for reassessment is solely derived from incriminating material found during a third-party search, the assessment proceedings must be initiated under Section 153C, not Section 148. Since the assessment was based entirely on the Dishman Group search, the notice under Section 148 and the subsequent assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The assessee was granted an adequate opportunity of being heard to provide the necessary details.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of the seized cash under section 69A but reduced the amount to ₹19,97,605/-, treating it as income from undisclosed sources. Various procedural grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, noting that the assessee maintained audited regular books of account which were not rejected and no errors were pointed out in them by the revenue. The CIT(A) had also considered additional evidence provided by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings under Section 271D are independent of assessment proceedings and can be initiated without prior satisfaction. The Tribunal also noted that the amendment to Section 269SS, defining 'specified sum' to include cash received for immovable property transactions, was applicable.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide the Assessing Officer adequate time to respond to a remand report. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings under Section 271D are independent of assessment proceedings and can be initiated without prior satisfaction. The Tribunal also noted that the amendment to Section 269SS, defining 'specified sum' to include cash received for immovable property transactions, was applicable.

The Tribunal condoned the substantial delays in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the interest of justice and following High Court precedents. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on their merits.

The Tribunal condoned the substantial delays in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the interest of justice and following High Court precedents. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on their merits.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice and restored the issues on merits to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication. The Tribunal noted that since no evidence was produced by the assessee before the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) would need to consider the applicability of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue was remanded for adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to file a reply before the CIT(A), and the CIT(A) was directed to strictly comply with Rule 46A, recording reasons for admission or rejection of additional evidence and granting the Assessing Officer an opportunity of being heard. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice and restored the issues on merits to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication. The Tribunal noted that since no evidence was produced by the assessee before the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) would need to consider the applicability of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue was remanded for adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to file a reply before the CIT(A), and the CIT(A) was directed to strictly comply with Rule 46A, recording reasons for admission or rejection of additional evidence and granting the Assessing Officer an opportunity of being heard. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice and restored the issues on merits to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication. The Tribunal noted that since no evidence was produced by the assessee before the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) would need to consider the applicability of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue was remanded for adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to file a reply before the CIT(A), and the CIT(A) was directed to strictly comply with Rule 46A, recording reasons for admission or rejection of additional evidence and granting the Assessing Officer an opportunity of being heard. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal found that the case involved multiple PANs and the assessee claimed exemption under Section 10(26). For the interest of justice, the appeal was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh order after hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice and restored the issues on merits to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication. The Tribunal noted that since no evidence was produced by the assessee before the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) would need to consider the applicability of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue was remanded for adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to file a reply before the CIT(A), and the CIT(A) was directed to strictly comply with Rule 46A, recording reasons for admission or rejection of additional evidence and granting the Assessing Officer an opportunity of being heard. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice and restored the issues on merits to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication. The Tribunal noted that since no evidence was produced by the assessee before the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) would need to consider the applicability of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue was remanded for adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to file a reply before the CIT(A), and the CIT(A) was directed to strictly comply with Rule 46A, recording reasons for admission or rejection of additional evidence and granting the Assessing Officer an opportunity of being heard. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) in the interest of justice and restored the issues on merits to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication. The Tribunal noted that since no evidence was produced by the assessee before the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) would need to consider the applicability of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the issue was remanded for adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to file a reply before the CIT(A), and the CIT(A) was directed to strictly comply with Rule 46A, recording reasons for admission or rejection of additional evidence and granting the Assessing Officer an opportunity of being heard. The appeals were partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal found that the assessee claimed to have documents to prove the requirement and requested another chance. Considering the interest of justice, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's failure to substantiate its case and the interest of justice, decided to grant one more opportunity. The issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after allowing the assessee to present its case with cogent documents.

The Tribunal found that the assessee claimed to have documents to prove the requirement and requested another chance. Considering the interest of justice, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(E), finding that the assessee was actively engaged in earning rental income at prevailing market rates on a commercial basis. The scale and nature of the activity indicated a business module, not incidental to charitable objects.