ITAT Indore Judgments — March 2026

The Tribunal noted that both the assessee's counsel and the revenue's representative agreed that the CIT(A)'s order violated the principles of natural justice due to a lack of proper hearing opportunities. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the purchase of shares of M/s Alpha Graphics occurred on 02.07.2010, which falls under Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12, not the AY 2012-13 under consideration. Therefore, the addition made in the current assessment year was not justified.

The Tribunal noted that the AO disallowed the second component of Section 36(1)(viia) deduction due to lack of details regarding rural branches and advances. While the CIT(A) granted relief based on assessee's submissions, these details were not verified by the AO. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the issue to the AO for fresh verification and adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO provided a very short and inadequate opportunity for the assessee to explain the cash deposit, violating principles of natural justice. The CIT(A) also failed to properly investigate the assessee's claim regarding prior cash withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted that both parties agreed on the existence of several past orders where similar loans from these companies were held to be genuine by the ITAT. Following these precedents, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition.

The Tribunal noted that there were several previous decisions where loans from the said entities were held to be genuine and not accommodation entries. Following these precedents, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order.

The tribunal held that while interest on the delayed re-deposit is justified as it compensates for the loss to revenue, the late fee under section 234E is not leviable. This is because the initial deposit and filing were within the due date, and the second filing was due to a mistake without causing loss to the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the filing of the audit report in Form 10CCB is a procedural requirement and is directory, not mandatory. As the report was filed before the intimation order was passed, the assessee is entitled to the deduction claimed under Section 80IA.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee due to valid reasons like family health issues. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was dismissed for non-prosecution without adjudication on merits. The Tribunal held that to ensure natural justice, the case should be remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments in other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal followed the decisions of the jurisdictional High Court and other Benches.

The Tribunal noted that both the assessee's counsel and the revenue's representative agreed that the CIT(A)'s order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice due to a lack of proper hearing opportunities. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the lender company was found to be genuine in other cases and that the assessee had provided documentary evidence of loan repayment and interest payment. The Tribunal also noted a denial of natural justice as the AO relied on a statement without providing an opportunity for cross-examination.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the second appeal, citing sufficient cause and the principle of substantial justice. The Tribunal remanded the matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(E) to provide a fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the second appeal, finding a sufficient cause and no negligence or mala fide intention. The matters were remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(E) to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that both parties agreed for a remand of the matters to the AO for fresh adjudication. This was in line with a previous order of the Tribunal concerning other assessment years of the same assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the second appeal, set aside the impugned assessment order, and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The AO was directed to consider all relevant information furnished by the assessee and provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeal after reviewing the material and hearing both parties, finding sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to decide the delay aspect and thereafter the merits.

The Tribunal held that the penalty order was time-barred. The starting point for calculating the limitation period is either the date of the assessment order or the date of the reference by the AO to the Competent Officer, and not the date of the show-cause notice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeal after finding a bonafide reason and sufficient cause, related to incorrect email communication. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to decide the delay aspect first, and then the merits if needed. The assessee was directed to file a formal application for condonation of delay.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal against the order rejecting the application for registration under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961. With the consent of both parties, the appeal was allowed to be withdrawn.