ITAT Indore Judgments — April 2026

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed in violation of natural justice as the assessee was not supplied with the seized documents and adversarial material. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1,62,00,000/- under Section 68 could not be sustained. Following previous decisions, it was found that Jayant Securities Pvt. Ltd. and other companies of the Sharad Darak group were not paper or shell companies.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and set aside the orders of the CIT(Exemption). The matter was remanded for de novo adjudication, directing the CIT(Exemption) to consider the applications under the correct sections and provide an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and set aside the orders of the CIT(Exemption). The matter was remanded for de novo adjudication, directing the CIT(Exemption) to consider the applications under the correct sections and provide an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and set aside the orders of the CIT(Exemption). The matter was remanded for de novo adjudication, directing the CIT(Exemption) to consider the applications under the correct sections and provide a hearing.

The Tribunal held that a penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) cannot be sustained if the assessment is completed on merits under Section 143(3) without any adverse inference for non-compliance. The Tribunal also noted that the facts were identical to other group concerns where similar penalties were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex-parte and in violation of natural justice due to issues with notice delivery. Therefore, the order was set aside.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be ex-parte and not in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Both the assessee and revenue agreed on remanding the case back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate its expenses, especially advertisement expenses paid to related parties, and that the nature of activities appeared business-oriented rather than charitable. The disallowance of excess expenditure was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that a penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) cannot be sustained if the assessment is completed on merits under Section 143(3) without any adverse inference for non-compliance. The Tribunal also noted that the facts were identical to other group concerns where similar penalties were deleted.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was passed in violation of natural justice as notices were sent to the wrong email address. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s observations regarding adjournment and submissions were factually incorrect. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, emphasizing the principle of natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.

The ITAT restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the principle of natural justice. The assessee was directed to ensure proper participation in the proceedings before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities, finding that the assessment was not adjudicated on merits and the CIT(A) order was not on merits. The case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment on merits.

The ITAT held that interest earned from co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d), restoring this issue to the AO for verification. However, the rental income deduction under Section 80P(2)(e) was rejected, and the deduction under Section 80P(2)(c) was remanded for factual verification regarding the 'consumers' co-operative society' status.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's due date for filing the return was October 31, 2018, as it was a cooperative society whose accounts were compulsorily audited. Since the return was filed on October 9, 2018, Section 80AC was not attracted, and the denial of deduction under Section 80P was incorrect.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO, directing him to provide the basis information for the addition and grant an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to ensure participation in future proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the initial burden of proof by providing explanations and documents. The department failed to provide concrete evidence to prove the remainder amount of Rs. 3,96,000/- was realized in demonetized currency. The addition of Rs. 47,000/- was remanded for verification.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of the revised ceiling limit of Rs. 25,00,000/- for leave encashment exemption. The matter was remanded to the AO for re-computation.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the present appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal, while acknowledging that the assessee had not been diligent in providing evidence, decided to grant one last opportunity. The case was remanded back to the AO for a de novo assessment, allowing the assessee to produce all necessary documents and evidence to substantiate the unsecured loans.

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The tribunal emphasized the principle of natural justice and directed the assessee to update their email ID and ensure participation.

The Tribunal observed that the assessment and appellate orders were not adjudicated on merits. Considering the assessee's background and the revenue's no objection, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing a 'sufficient cause' and the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The matter was then remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It then remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 is a procedural requirement, not a substantive one, and a substantive benefit like FTC should not be denied due to a procedural lapse. The Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee one more opportunity to present their case effectively. The AO was directed to provide a hearing and pass an order uninfluenced by the previous one.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, noting that the assessee had filed a reply before the impugned order was passed. The Tribunal emphasized the principle of natural justice and directed the assessee to ensure strict compliance in future hearings.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the lower authorities due to non-compliance by the assessee and the CIT(A)'s order being ex-parte. The case was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to submit explanations and evidence.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause and the principle of substantial justice. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the levy of late fee under Section 234E is not sustainable for defaults that occurred prior to June 1, 2015, as the power to create such a demand was introduced subsequently. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) confirming the fee was set aside.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year in question, the proviso to Section 10(23C) denying exemption for non-filing of return under Section 139(4C) was not effective. Therefore, the non-filing of the return alone could not be a ground to deny the exemption.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer (AO) on a de novo basis. The assessee is directed to provide full disclosure, and the AO is to provide all adversarial material for rebuttal.

The Tribunal found that new documents were presented by the assessee in the appeal, which were not available before the lower authorities. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the AO for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the death of the assessee and the lack of proper communication. It held that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were not adjudicated on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was subsequently granted registration under section 12A from AY 2023-24 onwards. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that there was confusion regarding the tax payment challan for the IDS declaration. Both parties agreed that the matter should be remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities' orders were not based on merits. Considering the death of the assessee and the difficulties faced by the legal heir, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the 3rd Proviso to Section 50C(1), introduced by the Finance Act, 2018, applies retrospectively from 01.04.2003. The difference between actual sale consideration and stamp duty valuation (Rs. 50,000, approx 1.19%) was within the safe harbour limit of 5%.

The Tribunal held that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were not decided on merits. The Tribunal noted that proper steps were not taken to ensure service of notices on the assessee, especially given the large volume of transactions. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was not sustainable. However, to end litigation, they accepted the assessee's proposal to tax 8% presumptive income on the disputed amount.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It allowed one addition related to loans, stating credits introduced in a prior year cannot be taxed in a subsequent year. The second addition concerning cash deposits was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that new evidence was produced at the appellate stage which was not before the lower authorities. Given the circumstances and the agreement of both parties, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that if the notice under Section 148 was actually issued on April 1, 2021, then the reassessment proceedings are governed by the substituted provisions of the Finance Act, 2021. Since the AO failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 148A, the notice and the consequent assessment order are void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that both the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were not decided on merits. The Tribunal noted that proper steps were not taken to ensure service of notices on the assessee, especially given the large volume of transactions. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal in limine. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to verify the assessee's claim of filing an online response and to decide the issue of delay with a fresh perspective, considering substantial justice over technicalities.

The Tribunal held that the appeal memo was seriously defective and non-maintainable as it was not signed by the assessee. Consequently, the appeal could not be adjudicated on its merits.

The Tribunal held that Rs. 46,000/- was explained as a mere re-deposit from a prior cash withdrawal to reduce overdraft interest. For the remaining Rs. 2,08,000/-, the Tribunal found the explanation plausible given the cash-intensive nature of the stamp vending business and the substantial turnover. The Revenue failed to provide contrary evidence, and the amount was considered reasonable within the business context.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had booked a property with Sahara and sold the booking right to Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain, with Shri Mukesh Joshi acting as a broker. The assessee's initial representation that Shri Mukesh Joshi was the buyer was due to a misunderstanding. New evidence, including a confirmatory certificate from Sahara, supported this corrected version.