ITAT Indore Judgments — May 2026

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had requested to admit additional evidence before the CIT(A) and that both parties agreed that the matter should be remanded. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had requested to admit additional evidence before the CIT(A) and that both parties agreed that the matter should be remanded. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had requested to admit additional evidence before the CIT(A) and that both parties agreed that the matter should be remanded. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal held that the sole ground of the revenue's appeal was resolved by the rectification order of the CIT(A), which explained the difference between bank credits and turnover as unsecured loans and advances.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeal, noting that a similar delay in connected quantum proceedings was also condoned. The penalty appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment on merits.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment on merits.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment on merits.

The Tribunal held that since the notice under Section 148 was issued on April 1, 2021, the reassessment proceedings were governed by the substituted provisions introduced by the Finance Act, 2021. Compliance with Section 148A was a mandatory condition precedent. As the AO failed to follow this procedure, the notice was void ab initio, and the consequent assessment was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated against a company that has already been struck off and is non-existent are void ab initio. Consequently, any order passed against such an entity is invalid.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated against a company that has already been struck off and is non-existent are void ab initio. Consequently, any order passed against such an entity is invalid.

The Tribunal held that the issue of the defective notice under section 148 was already pending before the CIT(A) in the first appeal against the reassessment order. Allowing the current appeal would lead to multiplicity of proceedings and was against the ends of justice.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the appeal was dismissed without granting a hearing, violating Section 250(1) and principles of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause and a justice-oriented approach. It found that the CIT(A)'s order was erroneous due to a mismatch in adjudication and a violation of natural justice principles.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10B is a procedural and directory requirement, not a fatal one. The exemption under Sections 11 & 12 cannot be denied solely on the ground of delayed filing of the audit report, especially when it was filed before the intimation order and signed within the prescribed time.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated against a company that has already been struck off and is non-existent are void ab initio. Consequently, any order passed against such an entity is invalid.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order of the CIT(A) was an ex-parte order passed without affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard, as notices were sent to a wrong email address. Therefore, the order was set aside.

The Tribunal considered the withdrawal application and the agreement of both parties. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as sufficient cause was shown. However, due to the assessment order being ex-parte under Section 144 and notices being sent to a wrong address, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.

The Tribunal found the impugned order to be bad in law and a violation of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted a reply and the Revenue had no objection to setting aside the order and remanding the case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not get an adequate opportunity to contest the matter before the lower authorities. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

For ITA No. 783/Ind/2025, the Tribunal restored the penalty matter to the AO for fresh adjudication as the quantum appeal was set aside. For ITA No. 784/Ind/2025, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the AO's action and dismissed the appeal.

For ITA No. 783/Ind/2025, the Tribunal restored the penalty matter to the AO for fresh adjudication as the quantum appeal was set aside. For ITA No. 784/Ind/2025, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the AO's action and dismissed the appeal.

The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) to examine the Form No. 26A filed by the assessee. The AO is to consider the assessee's claim and decide the matter afresh.

The Tribunal held that the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 9/2024, making the appeal non-maintainable. The Revenue's representative could not provide any contrary material to justify the appeal.

The tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 9/2024. The revenue's representative could not provide any contrary material to justify the appeal.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee pursuing rectification and appellate remedies. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for fresh adjudication after factual verification.

The ITAT restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case. The tribunal emphasized the principle of natural justice and directed the assessee to ensure compliance.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had failed to adjudicate the assessee's ground regarding the land not being a capital asset. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on all grounds.

The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 54 cannot be denied solely for not depositing the capital gain in the Capital Gains Deposit Scheme if the investment in the new house was made within the prescribed period. The deposit scheme is a procedural condition, not a substantive one that overrides timely investment.

The Tribunal held that the excess stock was a result of suppressed business income over the years and not an unexplained investment. The excess stock was part of the overall business stock and not separately identifiable, thus sections 69/69A/69B were not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- under Section 69A was not sustainable. It relied on previous decisions stating that the companies involved were not paper or shell companies.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh adjudication on merits, with the expectation of assessee cooperation.

The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties and accepted the assessee's request for withdrawal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, restoring the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to appear before the AO and make effective submissions.

The Tribunal held that the entire exercise of disturbing the year of allowability of expenditure would be revenue neutral as the expenditure was genuine and incurred for business. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents that emphasize the year of taxability of an amount when the expenditure is genuine.

The Tribunal found that the assessment order was not decided on merits and the CIT(A)'s order was also not on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence regarding agricultural income and remanded the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is to consider the utilization of the assessee's and family members' agricultural income for bank deposits.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable before the Indore Bench as the AO was located outside its territorial jurisdiction. The assessee's submissions regarding bona fide belief and hardship were rejected.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding that the dismissal on technical grounds was hyper-technical and that the matter had merits. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for a fresh decision on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding that the dismissal on technical grounds was hyper-technical and that the matter had merits. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for a fresh decision on merits.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee pursuing rectification and appellate remedies. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for fresh adjudication after factual verification.

The Tribunal held that a penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) cannot be sustained when the assessment is completed on merits under Section 143(3), indicating no willful non-compliance. The Tribunal also noted that similar penalties were deleted in identical cases involving group concerns.

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 drawing adverse inferences 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 a penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) cannot be sustained if the assessment is completed on merits under Section 143(3) without drawing adverse inferences 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 a penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) cannot be sustained when the assessment is completed on merits under Section 143(3), indicating no willful non-compliance. The Tribunal also noted that similar penalties were deleted in identical cases involving group concerns.

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 drawing adverse inferences 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 assessee had discharged its onus by providing sufficient documentation regarding the unsecured loans. The Revenue failed to present any adverse material to disprove the genuineness of the transactions. A significant portion of the loans had also been repaid.

The Tribunal held that a penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) cannot be sustained when the assessment is completed on merits under Section 143(3), indicating no willful non-compliance. The Tribunal also noted that similar penalties were deleted in identical cases involving group concerns.

The Tribunal held that a penalty under Section 272A(1)(d) cannot be sustained when the assessment is completed on merits under Section 143(3), indicating no willful non-compliance. The Tribunal also noted that similar penalties were deleted in identical cases involving group concerns.