ITAT Indore Judgments — June 2026

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in invoking Section 115BBE without properly considering the assessee's reply and the nature of the surrendered income as business income. The addition of excess stock was sustained, but at the normal rate of tax.

The Tribunal deleted the addition on account of jewellery, citing CBDT circulars and customary practices regarding 'Stridhan'. The addition for a small amount of cash found at the residence was also deleted as meagre. However, the addition for cash found in the locker was sustained due to lack of plausible explanation.

The Tribunal held that the change in currency note denominations between withdrawal and deposit does not invalidate the source of funds, which were explained as retirement benefits. The addition made under Section 69A was therefore not sustainable.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer. This was due to the peculiar circumstances, including the absence of the assessee's representative and the ongoing insolvency proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities did not properly examine the material and explanations provided by the assessee. The assessee had provided documentary evidence, including tax invoices, delivery challans, bank payments, and e-way bills, which were not adequately considered.

The tribunal noted that the assessee did not want to pursue the appeal and the revenue did not object. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

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 The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by a previous decision of the ITAT Indore Bench, which allowed rebate under Section 87A against tax on long-term capital gains. Consequently, the AO was directed to allow the rebate.

The Tribunal held that the donation was not disclosed to the Election Commission as required by law, and the assessee failed to provide cogent material to rebut the findings of the lower authorities. The Tribunal also noted the suspicious nature of the donation to a party in another state.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision. The assessee was directed to explain the delay in filing the application, and if the delay is condoned, the CIT(E) should decide the registration application on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee could approach the CBDT for condonation of delay under Section 119(b) of the Act. Upon condonation, the CIT(E) was directed to decide the application on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s order was not based on merits and went beyond the show cause notice. The Tribunal set aside the order and directed the CIT(E) to decide the application on merits after giving a proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide crucial documents like the sale agreement and diversion orders to the AO and CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found the impugned order to be ex-parte and not on merits. Both the assessee and revenue agreed to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the "Impugned Assessment Order" passed under section 143(3)/147 dated 28.12.2017 was proper and correct in law. The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to provide any explanation or evidence regarding the agricultural use of the land for the two years immediately preceding the transfer. Consequently, the AO rightly concluded that the conditions for section 54B were not satisfied. The CIT(A) also correctly rejected the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not challenged the validity of the reopening before the CIT(A), rendering that ground not adjudicable. Regarding the co-owners' cases, the Tribunal found that in Santosh Agarwal's case, the CIT(A) had decided that the reopening itself was invalid, making the addition ground infructuous, and had not adjudicated on the merits of stamp duty valuation or section 54B applicability. In the present case, the assessee did not challenge the reopening. The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof for agricultural use lay with the assessee, which was not discharged at any level, including before the ITAT. No substantial evidence of agriculture, such as prior germination, sales bills, or fertilizer use, was placed on record. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the assessment order was passed without jurisdiction as it was issued in the name of a deceased person. The Tribunal also noted that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on information regarding property sale and stamp duty value, but the details of the escaped income were not clearly ascertainable.

The Tribunal held that since the addition was made purely on an estimated basis without any finding of falsity in the assessee's explanation or proof of concealment, the penalty was not leviable. The defect in the penalty notice was also noted.

The Tribunal held that even if TDS was wrongly deducted in the assessee's hands under Section 194Q, the assessee is entitled to the credit as the amount was deducted from their income and paid to the government. The CIT(A)'s denial of credit was not in accordance with law.

The Tribunal held that since the revisionary order under Section 263, which formed the basis for the assessment order, was quashed, the consequential assessment order became infructuous. Therefore, the addition made for unexplained cash deposits was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the assessee claimed the receipts as business income, not income from other sources, and potentially covered under Section 44AD. Considering the detailed submissions and paper book filed before the Tribunal, the matter was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees now wish to apply for condonation of delay in filing their returns. Accepting this prayer, the Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer. This was to allow the assessees to file an application for condonation of delay in filing their returns with the CBDT, enabling them to pursue the Section 80P deduction.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 525 days, citing the assessee should not be penalized for the advocate's mistake and adopting a liberal approach. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's total income would be NIL even after considering the adhoc disallowance, due to the deduction available under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest earned from cooperative banks. Therefore, the disallowance was deleted.

The Tribunal, following a co-ordinate bench's decision on identical facts, held that the shares were not to be treated as penny stocks and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

The tribunal held that the ex-parte order violated the principles of natural justice and fair play. Therefore, the matter was restored to the assessing officer for fresh adjudication after providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that CBDT Circular No. 09/2024, which increased the monetary limit for filing appeals by the Department to the Tribunal to Rs. 60,00,000/-, is binding on the Revenue. Since the tax effect was below this limit, the appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the ex-parte order by the CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's low literacy and rural background. On merits, it held that since the revisionary order under Section 263 was quashed, the subsequent assessment order based on it became infructuous and was quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and remitted all issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and pass a speaking order.

The Tribunal held that a mere fall in GP ratio, without specific defects in the books of account, cannot justify rejection of books and estimation of higher profits. Certain disallowances were also deleted.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be bad in law and in violation of natural justice. The CIT(A) failed to consider the remand report and the assessee's comments, and notices were not sent to the correct email address.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeal and that the CIT(A) should have condoned it. Since the merits were not examined by the lower authorities, the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeal and that the CIT(A) should have condoned it. Since the merits were not examined by the lower authorities, the case was remanded back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeal, citing sufficient cause and a justice-oriented approach. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its primary onus under Section 68 by providing documents to establish the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan. Following previous ITAT decisions with similar facts and the same lender, the Tribunal deleted the additions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause due to the lapse of the earlier counsel. The impugned order of the CIT(E) was set aside, and the matters were restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were not adjudicated on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause due to the lapse of the earlier counsel. The impugned order of the CIT(E) was set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeal, citing the assessee's status as a senior citizen and lack of awareness of electronic notices. The Tribunal also found merit in restoring the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be bad in law and in violation of natural justice. The CIT(A) failed to consider the remand report and the assessee's comments, and notices were not sent to the correct email address.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the condonation of delay application and decide the appeal on merits after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the timelines prescribed for filing Form 10AB should be treated as directory, not mandatory, especially considering transitional provisions and CBDT circulars. The rejection based purely on technicalities was set aside.

The Tribunal held that TDS payable does not constitute an expenditure claimed in the Profit & Loss Account, thus section 43B is not applicable. Furthermore, the TDS was deposited before the due date for filing the return.