ITAT Indore Judgments — September 2026

The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) had not properly examined the submissions and documentary evidence provided by the assessee before issuing the impugned order. The Commissioner ought to have thoroughly scrutinized the assessee's replies and supporting materials to determine whether the trust's activities were charitable or religious. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner's order simply stated that the reply dated March 19, 2026, was not acceptable, without providing specific reasons. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner, discharging a quasi-judicial function, must pass a well-reasoned and speaking order, analyzing the material ingredients of Section 80G(5)(ii) based on the assessee's evidence. It was highlighted that an empirical analysis of financials, on-spot verification, and consideration of judicial precedents are crucial tools for adjudicating whether the trust's purpose is predominantly charitable or religious. The Tribunal also pointed out that the assessee is expected to provide complete disclosures, including details of charitable activities, and that the Commissioner should provide an opportunity for personal hearing. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner for a fresh de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the Impugned Assessment Order was passed in a mechanical manner without an in-depth analysis of the assessee's submissions. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the core contention of the assessee that there was no generation or sale of scrap. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's explanation regarding the cost of production, showing 87.70% for material consumed and 12.30% for manufacturing expenses and personnel, was not negated by the revenue with any tangible material. The Tribunal observed that the revenue had not provided any empirical findings or tangible data, such as factory-based production, shop-level production, or central excise/sales tax records, to sustain the allegation of scrap generation and sales. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had provided details of previous years' audited financial statements which did not show any scrap sales. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the Impugned Order.

The Tribunal held that the impugned order of the CIT(A) was liable to be set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh denovo adjudication. The Tribunal observed that out of five notices issued by the CIT(A) under section 250, only one notice was sent to the correct email address as per Form No. 35. The remaining notices were dispatched to different email addresses, which the assessee had not provided. This failure to send notices to the correct address constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's remaining grounds and the submissions of the Revenue required proper consideration. Therefore, the matter was remitted to the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order after providing the assessee with adequate opportunity to present all documents and papers, ensuring a correct and proper adjudication based on merits and material. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that registration under section 12AB had been granted to the assessee. The CIT(E) had rejected the renewal/approval under section 80G(5)(ii) primarily because the trust was considered purely religious. However, considering the contentions raised by the assessee's counsel, the written submissions, the paper book, and the additional ground raised, the Tribunal was of the view that in the interest of justice and fair play, the assessee should be given another opportunity to explain its claim. The Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo consideration of the assessee's application for renewal of registration under section 80G(5)(ii). The CIT(E) is to independently examine the matter based on all available material and facts submitted by the assessee, provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with the law. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the specific findings on the grounds of appeal, as the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. Regarding Grounds 1 and 2, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) correctly exercised powers under Section 250(4) by calling for a remand report. The additional evidence was not admitted directly but forwarded for verification. The AO examined the evidence and submitted findings, confirming the genuineness of transactions. Therefore, the admission of additional evidence did not violate Rule 46A. For the remaining grounds, the Tribunal noted that the AO's remand report contained no adverse remarks on the loan transactions. The report summarized the lenders: M/s Anantnath Skycon Pvt. Ltd. (Rs. 4.25 crore, repaid with interest, TDS deducted, lender's income Rs. 666.71 crore), M/s Pitamber Commodities Futures Pvt. Ltd. (Rs. 1 crore, related concern, squared up, lender's loss Rs. 31.68 lakh), M/s Motisons Commodities Pvt. Ltd. (Rs. 79.40 lakh, repaid with interest, TDS deducted, lender's income Rs. 1.08 lakh), and Shri Prashant Tibrewala (Rs. 3.09 crore, Director/shareholder, transactions through running account, lender's income Rs. 20.18 lakh). The Tribunal found that the AO was satisfied with the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of these transactions, as reflected in the remand report. Consequently, the remaining grounds raised by the Revenue were also found to be devoid of merit.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application before the ROC for amending its Articles of Association, specifically Article 41 (buyback of shares) and Articles 80 to 88 (dividend and reserves). Considering this development and the assessee's request for an opportunity to file all necessary details, the Tribunal deemed it fit to set aside the orders of the CIT(E). The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) with a direction to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was directed to cooperate by filing all required documents and details to enable the CIT(E) to pass an order for registration under Section 12AB and 80G(5) as per law. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(E) had recorded that notices were served, but the appellant denied the service of summons. To ensure the cause of justice, the Tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to one more opportunity to be heard on merits. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had also filed its registration issued under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the CIT(E) was set aside. The CIT(E) was directed to decide the matter afresh, providing an adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application before the ROC for amending its Articles of Association, specifically Article 41 (buyback of shares) and Articles 80 to 88 (dividend and reserves). Considering this development and the assessee's request for an opportunity to file all necessary details, the Tribunal deemed it fit to set aside the orders of the CIT(E). The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) with a direction to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was directed to cooperate by filing all required documents and details to enable the CIT(E) to pass an order for registration under Section 12AB and 80G(5) as per law. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear before it, and consequently, no arguments were presented on behalf of the assessee. The Revenue was represented, and the appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had filed an appeal before the CIT(A) against the reassessment order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act for AY 2014-15. However, the judgment excerpt provided does not contain the findings or decision of the Tribunal on the merits of the case or the specific issues raised. The operative directions or the final outcome of the appeal are not recorded in the provided text.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeals were not maintainable. The reasoning was that the assessee's first application, though filed under a wrong section, was decided on merits by the CIT(E) vide order dated January 16, 2026. When an application is rejected on merits, the statutory remedy available to the assessee is to challenge the order before a higher forum. Instead of doing so, the assessee filed a second application in Form 10AB, which amounted to a misuse of the process of law. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had categorically recorded that since no appeal was filed against the order dated January 16, 2026, the findings for rejection had attained finality. Therefore, the second application was not maintainable, and consequently, the appeals against the orders rejecting the second application also did not lie. The Tribunal answered the framed question in the negative and dismissed both appeals.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeals were not maintainable. The reasoning was that the assessee's first application, though filed under a wrong section, was decided on merits by the CIT(E) vide order dated January 16, 2026. When an application is rejected on merits, the statutory remedy available to the assessee is to challenge the order before a higher forum. Instead of doing so, the assessee filed a second application in Form 10AB, which amounted to a misuse of the process of law. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had categorically recorded that since no appeal was filed against the order dated January 16, 2026, the findings for rejection had attained finality. Therefore, the second application was not maintainable, and consequently, the appeals against the orders rejecting the second application also did not lie. The Tribunal answered the framed question in the negative and dismissed both appeals.

The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the assessee before the Jaipur Bench is not maintainable. This decision was based on the territorial jurisdiction notification and Standing Order No. 01 of 2021 issued by the Hon’ble President, ITAT, which stipulates that appeals arising from orders passed by the Ld. CIT(E), Jaipur, are exclusively cognizable by the Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal. Consequently, the appeal filed before the Jaipur Bench was dismissed. However, the assessee was granted liberty to file an appropriate appeal before the Jodhpur Bench in the manner known to law. No other issues were decided.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal for AY 2016-17, finding that "sufficient cause" was shown. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's non-compliance during assessment was due to compelling business circumstances and that the non-participation in the first appeal was partly due to the Covid-19 period. The Tribunal observed that the assessee now sincerely wants to pursue the case on merits and is willing to provide all necessary details and material before the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the "Impugned Order" and remanded the case back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on a denovo basis. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a fresh order on merits, and the assessee was directed to cooperate with the revenue authorities. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The same order was applied mutatis mutandis to ITA No. 1040/IND/2025 for AY 2018-19, also condoning a 6-day delay in filing the first appeal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal for AY 2016-17, finding that "sufficient cause" was shown. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's non-compliance during assessment was due to compelling business circumstances and that the non-participation in the first appeal was partly due to the Covid-19 period. The Tribunal observed that the assessee now sincerely wants to pursue the case on merits and is willing to provide all necessary details and material before the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the "Impugned Order" and remanded the case back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on a denovo basis. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a fresh order on merits, and the assessee was directed to cooperate with the revenue authorities. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. The same order was applied mutatis mutandis to ITA No. 1040/IND/2025 for AY 2018-19, also condoning a 6-day delay in filing the first appeal.

The Tribunal held that the ld. CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order dismissing the appeal in limine for being barred by limitation, without deciding the appeal on merits. The Tribunal considered the affidavit filed by the assessee, which explained the delay. It was noted that after excluding the COVID-19 period as per the Supreme Court's order, the delay was 553 days. The Tribunal found that the delay occurred due to the bona fide prosecution of a remedy before the Hon'ble M.P. High Court under a genuine belief, particularly in contesting a huge demand raised by the AO via a writ petition. The Tribunal concluded that there was no mala fide intention in filing the appeal belatedly. Citing the ratio in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Ors vs. Mst. Matiji & Ors (1987) 2 SCC 107, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and remanded the matter to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide a sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Tribunal clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the additions or penalty, leaving all issues for fresh adjudication. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the ld. CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order dismissing the appeal in limine for being barred by limitation, without deciding the appeal on merits. The Tribunal considered the affidavit filed by the assessee, which explained the delay. It was noted that after excluding the COVID-19 period as per the Supreme Court's order, the delay was 553 days. The Tribunal found that the delay occurred due to the bona fide prosecution of a remedy before the Hon'ble M.P. High Court under a genuine belief, particularly in contesting a huge demand raised by the AO via a writ petition. The Tribunal concluded that there was no mala fide intention in filing the appeal belatedly. Citing the ratio in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Ors vs. Mst. Matiji & Ors (1987) 2 SCC 107, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) and remanded the matter to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide a sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The Tribunal clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the additions or penalty, leaving all issues for fresh adjudication. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's illness. The Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred by ignoring the current year's income earned as cash commission and solely relying on a mathematical difference. The assessee had provided explanations for the cash flow and brokerage receipts, demonstrating the availability of cash.

The ITAT found that while the CIT(A) had provided opportunities, the assessee's response was limited to adjournment requests. However, considering the assessee's undertaking to participate diligently, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order and subsequent appellate proceedings were vitiated due to lack of proper jurisdiction. The Assessing Officer at Dhar should not have proceeded with the assessment as the assessee's jurisdictional address had shifted to Indore.

The Tribunal held that the donation was bogus as the political party was found to be involved in tax evasion and did not engage in genuine political activities. The party also failed to submit required reports to the Election Commission.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) passed the order without considering the detailed submissions filed by the assessee during the first appellate proceedings, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT erred in initiating revision proceedings under section 263. Regarding the 'Unwinding Interest on provision for Overlay' (Rs. 5,03,04,427/-), the Tribunal noted that the assessee is obligated under the NHAI Agreement to carry out periodic road renewal. This obligation was quantified by NHAI and discounted to its present value as per IND-AS 37. The unwinding interest represents the recognition of interest expenditure over time on this liability. The Tribunal found that this unwinding interest pertains to an ascertained liability, fulfilling the criteria laid down by the Apex Court in Rotork Controls India Ltd. vs. CIT. Therefore, it is not required to be adjusted under Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2). The Tribunal also noted that specific provisions for IND-AS compliant companies must be applied, and the unwinding interest on provision for overlay cannot be treated as per clause 3 of Explanation 1 to section 115JB. The Tribunal further held that the 'Profit/(loss) on initial Recognition of investments' was a notional loss on fair valuation and not an actual loss. Consequently, the Pr. CIT's order under section 263 was quashed, and the assessment order was restored. Grounds of appeal 2 and 3 were allowed.

The Tribunal found that the assessment and appellate orders were not adjudicated on merits and were passed ex-parte due to non-compliance and issues with notice service. The Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal found that there was a discrepancy in the email addresses and that the assessee might not have received effective notice. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the matter was set aside for fresh adjudication by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(E) was not entirely justified in rejecting the application solely based on the nursing college's lack of current affiliation, especially when the society was running a school. The Tribunal observed that while the nursing college's lack of current affiliation made the order 'not proper or irregular' concerning that activity, the school 'Anant Anandalaya' was being run for charitable purposes, though a detailed inquiry was warranted. The Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the Ld. CIT(E) for a de novo examination. The Ld. CIT(E) is directed to give an opportunity of personal hearing to the assessee to explain the entire issue, particularly regarding the nursing college's operational period until closure and the school's activities. The assessee is also directed to produce all necessary papers regarding the nursing college's operational activities until closure. The Tribunal left undecided the specific period for which the nursing college was operational, as it was not explained.

The Tribunal found that the notices were indeed sent to an incorrect email address, leading to a violation of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the rejection order was passed without properly verifying the records available on the Income Tax portal. The assessee had submitted documents online, which constituted valid compliance.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish the purchase, holding, sale, and receipt of sale proceeds through banking channels. The revenue failed to provide any specific material to link the assessee with an accommodation entry arrangement.

The Tribunal found that the assessment and appellate orders were not adjudicated on merits and were passed ex-parte due to non-compliance and issues with notice service. The Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 37,01,999/- was not justified as the opening cash balance was a brought-forward amount from audited accounts and the Assessing Officer did not provide material to prove it was unexplained income for the relevant year.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits was not adequately corroborated by documentary evidence and that there were variations in the explanation provided at different stages. Therefore, the matter required fresh examination by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was indeed passed before the scheduled hearing date, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, was deleted in the assessee's earlier appeal, the penalty imposed thereon automatically becomes unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned order upholding the penalty was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeal, considering the death of the CA and the subsequent difficulties faced by the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for adjudication on merits.