ITAT Jabalpur Judgments — May 2026

The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 115BBE, which increased the tax rate, came into effect after the date of the survey. Therefore, the higher tax rate could not be applied retrospectively to the income surrendered before the amendment.

The Tribunal found an inherent contradiction in the findings of the lower authorities regarding the allowability of the expenditure. Consequently, the case was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after verifying the material furnished by the assessee.

The assessee sought permission to withdraw the appeal during the hearing. The Revenue representative had no objection to the withdrawal. The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal noted that both assessment and appellate proceedings were conducted without evidence or submissions from the assessee. Following judicial precedents, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the case to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to rebut the negative findings, particularly regarding the computation of religious expenditure. This procedural lapse violated the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the lack of effective representation before lower authorities and to uphold natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the assessment to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without adhering to Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1961. The CIT(A) failed to provide an opportunity to the Assessing Officer to verify or rebut the additional evidence.

The Tribunal held that the higher rate of tax under the amended Section 115BBE is not applicable to the assessment year under consideration. It followed decisions that favored the assessee in cases of ambiguity in fiscal law.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte assessment and appellate orders, remanding the case to the AO for de-novo assessment. This was done because the proceedings were conducted without evidence or submissions from the assessee, and the reasons for non-prosecution were not considered deliberate.

The Tribunal acknowledged the defects in the stock records and agreed that re-computation was necessary to accurately determine the stock shortage. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh calculation of shortages and to avoid double additions.

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly verified the assessee's explanation regarding opening cash balance and other explainable sources of expenditure. No categorical finding was made by the Revenue to establish undisclosed income. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal found that the monetary cap for bad debts and whether income was added back for overdue interest needed verification. Therefore, the assessment order was set aside, and the Assessing Officer was directed to verify the claims and make a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that a claim for deduction under Section 54B can be considered at any stage if it is a valid claim. The assessment order was set aside and the issue was restored to the AO to verify the claim for deduction under Section 54B.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide adequate evidence to satisfy the conditions for deductions under Sections 80HHA and 80IA. However, due to deficiencies in how the AO presented the negative findings and the assessee's lack of effective confrontation, the matter was remanded.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee could not adduce evidence in both assessment and first appellate proceedings. Considering the lack of evidence and the need for proper verification, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal as requested by the assessee. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal perused the assessee's letter seeking withdrawal of the appeal and found no reason to reject the request. The Revenue expressed no objection to the withdrawal. Consequently, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had become infructuous due to settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the dispute was settled under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the appeal had become infructuous.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had become infructuous due to settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the department issuing Form No. 5 certifying no demand is pending.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and requested withdrawal of the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had become infructuous due to settlement under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.