ITAT Indore Judgments — November 2025

The Tribunal held that the impugned order should be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on a de novo basis. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the department.

The Tribunal noted that both the assessee's AR and the revenue's DR agreed that the impugned order should be set aside. The Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of deductions claimed under Section 80C and 80TTA by the AO did not fall within the definition of 'undisclosed income' as defined in Section 271AAB. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 271AAB was not sustainable.

The Tribunal acknowledged the principle of natural justice and the potential for prejudice to the revenue. Considering the submissions, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with a necessary opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a 'sufficient cause' for the delay in filing the appeal due to the medical complications of their counsel. The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the levy of penalty is linked to the additions made in the assessment order. If the addition itself does not subsist, the penalty cannot stand. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s orders.

The Tribunal held that the levy and calculation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) are intrinsically linked to the additions made in the assessment order. If the additions are deleted, the penalty cannot sustain. Therefore, the appeals of the revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) had misconstrued the provisions regarding the time limit for filing the application for final approval. The Tribunal noted that a similar issue had been decided in favor of the assessee by coordinate benches. The Tribunal also considered the resolution passed by the assessee addressing the dissolution clause.

The Tribunal, finding that the AR and DR were 'Ad idem' (in agreement), set aside the impugned order. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on a de novo basis, directing the assessee to cooperate fully.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the purchases, and the AO was justified in treating them as bogus. However, since necessary documents were provided to the assessee after the impugned order was passed, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment on a denovo basis.

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given one last opportunity to submit the necessary documents. The impugned order was set aside, and the proceedings were remanded back to the CIT(E) for a fresh consideration on a denovo basis.

The Tribunal noted that the protective additions were intrinsically linked to the substantive additions in the son's case. Since the appeals of the son were still pending, the Tribunal restored the assessee's appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication along with the son's appeals.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. It was held that the assessee could seek recall of the order if their application under the scheme was rejected. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals to be withdrawn as the assessee is not willing to pursue them, having opted for the 'Vivad se Vishwas' Scheme. The assessee was granted liberty to seek recall of the order if their scheme application is rejected.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to provide all necessary documents, it was important to provide one last opportunity to fulfill the requirements. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the CIT(E) for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal held that the ITAT, Indore Bench does not have jurisdiction over Raipur, where the original assessment order was passed. Therefore, the appeal and cross-objection are not maintainable before this bench.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order should be set aside and the matter remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 5000/- to the PM Relief Fund.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's second revision order was based on an earlier revision order that had already been quashed by the ITAT. Therefore, the PCIT could not have passed the impugned order. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted a reply, though it was considered incomplete by the CIT(E). To ensure substantial justice and provide a proper opportunity, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee to make further submissions.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a reply and that the CIT(E) had acknowledged it. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the case to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, directing that the CIT(E) should provide a necessary opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that both the assessee and the revenue department agreed to set aside the impugned orders and remand the case back to the Assessing Officer (JAO) for fresh adjudication on a de novo basis. The Assessing Officer is directed to pass a fresh assessment order within six months after considering all aspects of the case. The penalty appeal Under Section 271B, having similar facts, was also remanded on a de novo basis.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee's first appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) solely on the grounds of delay without adjudicating on merits. Both parties agreed that the impugned order should be set aside. The Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal noted the possibility of communication gaps and the lack of effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had filed a reply and paper-book after two opportunities were given. To ensure substantial justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(E) to provide adequate opportunities to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to payment of cost, considering the assessee's meritorious case and the established practice in a subsequent year. The appeal was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing due opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the appeal was filed beyond the limitation period and the grounds for condonation of delay were not convincing. The assessee's claim of health issues affecting the delay was contradicted by the timeline.