ITAT Indore Judgments — October 2025

The Tribunal held that the period for compliance with notices fell within the Covid-19 lockdown, making it impossible for the assessee to comply. Therefore, the CIT(A) ought not to have confirmed the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the period for compliance with the notices fell within the Covid-19 lockdown period, making it impossible for the assessee to comply due to extraordinary circumstances. Therefore, the penalty imposed was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the period for compliance, falling within the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic and national lockdown, made it impossible for the assessee to comply with the notices. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal acknowledged the non-compliance of the assessee but, considering the trivial nature of the issue and the penalty amount, agreed with both parties that a reduced penalty would meet the ends of justice. The penalty of Rs. 20,000/- was reduced to Rs. 10,000/- to bring finality to the litigation.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have followed the due process of law as enshrined under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules before admitting additional evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the AO for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 2 lakhs for unexplained cash deposit was uncalled for, considering the CBDT's instruction not to verify cash deposits up to Rs. 2.5 lakhs during demonetization. The addition was deleted, and the ground was allowed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty for the assessee to recall the order if their application under the scheme is rejected.

The Tribunal condoned the 183-day delay in filing the appeal, citing 'reasonable cause' and a liberal approach. It dismissed the legal grounds concerning the validity of reassessment proceedings, confirming that the AO validly framed the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147. However, the Tribunal restored all issues related to the merits, including additions under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE and rejection of books under Section 145(3), back to the file of the Ld. AO for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee a fresh opportunity to explain.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to explain the cash deposits and contractual receipts.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the reasons provided and the judgment in Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the grounds of appeal on merits for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned a 9-day delay in filing the appeal and, considering the assessee's grounds regarding lack of proper opportunity, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was done to allow the assessee to present submissions and evidence, ensuring a fair opportunity.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A) had not dealt with the issues on merits due to the assessee's non-appearance and directed the CIT(A) to re-adjudicate the matter after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the construction of the building for charitable activities should be considered part of the charitable activity itself. The CIT(Exemption)'s observation that construction was ongoing indicated that the assessee had indeed started activities towards its charitable objects.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction of interest income earned from cooperative banks, following Gujarat High Court and Tribunal precedents. However, the quantification of the deduction needs to be re-verified by the AO.

The Tribunal noted the conflicting positions of the assessee declaring residency in both Singapore and India, and the TDS claim. It held that these facts warranted examination by the Assessing Officer to determine the correct TDS credit entitlement based on applicable laws.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons to be bona fide and not intentional. It further held that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on the merits and that the AO had passed an ex-parte order. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the jurisdictional AO for de novo adjudication on merits, allowing it for statistical purposes. The assessee is directed to present all relevant material evidence regarding the source of alleged unexplained money, and the AO is to provide a reasonable opportunity before deciding the matter in accordance with the law.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus by proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loans. The Tribunal also noted that the lender companies were 'active' and that the loans had been repaid. Relying on previous decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the issue was covered and the addition was not justified.

The Tribunal found that the impugned order should be set aside and the matter remanded back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the department and provide all necessary documents, including the sale deed and land holding certificates.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's authorized representative requested to withdraw the appeal, and the departmental representative did not object. Therefore, the appeal was permitted to be withdrawn and accordingly dismissed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and, considering the assessee's status as a senior citizen and the interest of justice, remanded the matters back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and, considering the assessee's representation and the principle of natural justice, remanded the matters back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had substantial evidence for purchases, which needed examination by the AO. However, the assessee's non-compliance with notices contributed to the ex-parte assessment. The matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication with a cost imposed on the assessee.

The Tribunal found sufficient force in the Revenue's submissions and rejected the assessee's delay application. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed in limine as time-barred.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A of the Income Tax Act, which enabled the computation of late fees, was prospective. Therefore, late fees could not be levied for defaults occurring before June 1, 2015, even if the intimation was issued later.

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 200A(1) regarding the computation of late fees was prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, for defaults prior to June 1, 2015, the AO was not empowered to levy late fees under Section 200A, even if the TDS statements were filed belatedly and processed after the amendment date. The appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal observed that the principle of natural justice was not followed. Therefore, the appeals were remanded back to the CIT(A) to provide a fresh opportunity for hearing and adjudication.

The Tribunal acknowledged the submissions of both parties and, considering the principle of natural justice, remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a fresh opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of M/s Jay-Jyoti (India) Pvt. Ltd. being a paper company had been previously decided in multiple Tribunal orders, holding it was not a paper or shell company. Following these precedents, the Tribunal ruled that the credit loan entry of Rs. 87,20,000/- could not be added under Section 68, and the interest disallowance of Rs. 3,53,160/- was also incorrect. The total addition of Rs. 90,73,160/- was deleted, and the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex-parte due to insufficient and disproportionately spaced opportunities, leading to a violation of natural justice. Both the assessee and the Revenue agreed to a remand. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication (de novo) with directions for the assessee to cooperate.

The Tribunal held that the matter should be remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh after examining the evidences filed by the assessee and further submissions. The CIT(A) was directed to give a necessary opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate order.