ITAT Indore Judgments — July 2026

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide an effective reply to the notices issued during assessment and appeal proceedings. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 1,69,260 was upheld, but directed to be added as part of the turnover with a 4% Net Profit rate.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be ex-parte and non-speaking, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing a liberal approach to delay condonation and the principle of natural justice. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the assessee should not be penalized for the consultant's mistake and referencing the Supreme Court's stance on substantial justice over technicalities. The matter was then restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by previous decisions allowing a higher exemption limit based on a CBDT notification. The impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration. The assessee was directed to provide all necessary documents and pay a cost of Rs. 5000/-.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to be heard and submit further evidence.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on a technicality without adjudicating the merits, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given sufficient time by the AO and the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application. It noted that Section 80G(5B) allows for expenditure of a religious nature up to five percent of total income, implying that some religious objects are permissible. The Tribunal also considered the assessee's prior registration under Section 12AB(1)(b) as evidence that it was not exclusively for a particular religious community.

The Tribunal held that the non-compliances occurred before registration and that the assessees undertook to rectify them. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to give the assessees another opportunity to present their case and evidence before the CIT(Exemption).

The Tribunal allowed grounds 5 and 6 raised by the assessee on merits and deleted the addition sustained by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the agricultural land situated at Gram Talawali Chanda, admeasuring 4.048 Hectare (10 Acres), was used for agriculture purposes for many years and during the relevant financial year. The sale was agreed upon in FY 2010-11, with registries executed in two parts on 30-09-2010 and 31-03-2011 due to payment issues. The Tribunal held that the land was sold on 30-09-2010, at the time of the first registry, and was considered agriculture land only till the date of registry, even though it was diverted to non-agriculture purposes prior to the second registry at the buyer's request. The assessee continued agriculture activities until the date of registry. The Tribunal noted that the assessee offered agricultural income of Rs. 8,61,550/- which was accepted by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted. As the appeal was allowed on merit, all other issues, including technical grounds of reopening and other grounds on merits, were rendered academic and infructuous. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

The Tribunal held that the non-compliances occurred before registration and that the assessees undertook to rectify them. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to give the assessees another opportunity to present their case and evidence before the CIT(Exemption).

The Tribunal held that the amendment allowing a deviation of up to 10% between stamp duty value and actual sale consideration is retrospective. Since the difference in this case was below the tolerance limit, no addition should be made.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition under Section 68 as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence for the source of capital. It further held that partner remuneration within the limits of Section 40(b) is allowable and Section 40A(2) is not applicable in such cases.

The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings, finding that the notice was issued beyond the prescribed limitation period under Section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as it stood prior to the amendments.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly allowed the foreign tax credit as Form 67 was filed belatedly with all required details. The Tribunal found no inconsistency in the CIT(A)'s order and the Revenue failed to provide any binding precedent.

The Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued by the AO was defective as it failed to specify the exact charge of default, i.e., whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Relying on the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal quashed the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the purchase price of the agricultural land was Rs. 24 Lakhs, making the assessee's share Rs. 8 Lakhs. It further held that the source of this amount was agricultural income from ancestral land, for which sufficient evidence was provided.

The Tribunal found that the explanation and supporting documents (pages 40-41 of the paper book) required verification by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a detailed inquiry.

The Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was to provide the assessee an opportunity to present supporting documents.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper and effective opportunity of being heard. The CIT(A) passed an order without properly considering the merits of the case, which is not justifiable. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the reasonable cause presented by the assessee. The Tribunal also found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard by the lower appellate authority and the order was passed without proper consideration of the merits.

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

The Tribunal held that the proviso to section 12A(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, read in conjunction with CBDT Circular No. 1/2015, grants retrospective effect to registrations granted under section 12AA. This means that if the objects and activities of the trust were the same in the earlier assessment year for which proceedings were pending, the benefit of exemption under sections 11 and 12 can be applied. The Tribunal noted that the registration under section 12AA was granted on 26.02.2020. However, it also referred to a registration granted on 26.11.2018 (though this date seems to conflict with the facts stated earlier, the Tribunal's reasoning relies on it). The Tribunal concluded that the registration granted should be considered in favour of the assessee for AY 2019-20. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the AO to recompute the income after allowing the admissible exemption under sections 11 and 12, providing the assessee an opportunity to furnish necessary information. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding reasonable cause. It was held that the assessees were not given a proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A) and that the CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without proper examination of the case on merits.

The Tribunal held that the AO's calculation of the interest rate charged was factually incorrect as it did not consider repayments made during the year. The actual interest rate received was higher than the interest paid, making the disallowance unjustified.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding it to be for a reasonable cause. The Tribunal also found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard by the lower appellate authority and that the order was passed without proper consideration of the merits of the case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding reasonable cause. It was held that the assessees were not given a proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A) and that the CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without proper examination of the case on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding reasonable cause. It was held that the assessees were not given a proper opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A) and that the CIT(A) had passed ex-parte orders without proper examination of the case on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was non-compliant throughout the assessment and penalty proceedings. The arguments presented by the assessee were found to be meritless and unsupported by material evidence, thus sustaining the penalty order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was non-compliant throughout the assessment and penalty proceedings. The arguments presented by the assessee were found to be meritless and unsupported by material evidence, thus sustaining the penalty order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was non-compliant throughout the assessment and penalty proceedings. The arguments presented by the assessee were found to be meritless and unsupported by material evidence, thus sustaining the penalty order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was non-compliant throughout the assessment and penalty proceedings. The arguments presented by the assessee were found to be meritless and unsupported by material evidence, thus sustaining the penalty order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was non-compliant throughout the assessment and penalty proceedings. The arguments presented by the assessee were found to be meritless and unsupported by material evidence, thus sustaining the penalty order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was non-compliant throughout the assessment and penalty proceedings. The arguments presented by the assessee were found to be meritless and unsupported by material evidence, thus sustaining the penalty order.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity and the appeal was dismissed without considering the merits. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned due to sufficient cause.

The Tribunal found that the assessment order and the CIT(A)'s order were not adjudicated on merits and violated principles of natural justice. The matter was set aside and remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. Both the assessee and the revenue agreed that the case should be remanded for a de novo consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was non-compliant throughout the assessment and penalty proceedings. The arguments presented by the assessee were found to be meritless and unsupported by material evidence, thus sustaining the penalty order.