Loading ITAT cases…
3,585 tribunal orders from the Nagpur bench.
Counted from the judgments of this bench on BharatTax. The figure is how many of them cite each decision.
When two equally plausible interpretations of a taxing provision are possible, or when conflicting views exist from non-jurisdictional High Courts, the interpretation that favors the assessee must be adopted.
Taxing statutes are presumed to operate prospectively unless a clear contrary intention for retrospective application is evident. The law applicable for determining tax liability is that which stands on the first day of the assessment year, following the principle that law looks forward, not backward (lex prospicit non respicit).
Employee contributions to PF and ESIC, deposited beyond the due date under the respective Acts but within the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139(1), are allowable deductions under Section 36(1)(va). Such disallowance cannot be made during processing under Section 143(1).
Incentive provisions in the Income-tax Act, particularly those granting deductions for new industrial undertakings, must be construed liberally to achieve their legislative purpose. This principle guides the interpretation of conditions such as what constitutes a 'new undertaking' versus a 'splitting up or reconstruction' of an existing business for claiming deductions.
Employee and employer contributions towards Provident Fund (PF) and Employees' State Insurance (ESI) are allowable deductions under sections 36(1)(va) and 43B, respectively, if deposited on or before the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1), even if paid after the due date prescribed under the respective welfare legislation.
The employees' contribution to provident fund (PF) and Employee State Insurance (ESI), if remitted before the due date for filing the income tax return, is an allowable deduction under section 36(1)(va), especially when considering the prospective amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2021.
Sun Export Corporation held that any ambiguity in a tax exemption provision or notification must be interpreted in favor of the assessee or the subject.
The amendment to Section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act by the Finance Act, 2021, is prospective in nature. Therefore, delayed payments of employee contributions to provident funds and ESI are allowable deductions if deposited before the due date of filing the income tax return for the relevant year.
Amendments made by the Finance Act, 2021 to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Income Tax Act are prospective.
Appellate authorities can consider new claims and additional grounds if the relevant facts are already on record. The purpose of assessment is to correctly determine tax liability, allowing both parties to raise issues.
Section 234E, levying late fees for delayed filing of TDS statements under section 200(3), is constitutionally valid and constitutes a compensatory fee, not a punitive penalty. Before treating any person as an assessee-in-default, an opportunity of being heard must be provided.
Delay in filing appeals, when supported by sufficient or justifiable cause, should be condoned with a liberal approach to ensure substantial justice. This principle prioritizes the cause of justice over mere technicalities.
The fee under Section 234E of the Income-tax Act cannot be levied for defaults in filing TDS statements committed prior to June 1, 2015, as the provision for its levy became effective only from that date.
The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution or default in appearance. Under Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, the CIT(A) must decide the appeal on its merits, even in an ex parte proceeding.
A fee under Section 234E cannot be levied or adjusted in an intimation under Section 200A for TDS statements pertaining to periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) came into effect only from that date.
An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.
An assessment under section 153A is without jurisdiction if there is an absence of incriminating material for an unabated assessment year.
The Revenue is entitled to look behind the apparent form of a transaction to discover its true nature, applying the test of human probabilities and surrounding circumstances. If transactions defy logic or are unnatural, they can be treated as bogus, even if supported by some documentation, especially in cases of cash credits or unexplained investments.
The validity of approval is a fundamental issue that can be raised at any time, and the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear such issues even if they did not originate from the orders of the CIT(A).
Most recent orders on record, from 2026.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 62 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Tribunal observed that the assessee had filed medical bills and an affidavit before the Ld. CIT(A) explaining the delay, which was primarily attributed to a fatal road accident involving the key person of the assessee AOP, necessitating medical treatment. Considering this as a reasonable cause, the Tribunal placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. Since the Ld. CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issues on merits, the Tribunal restored all the issues raised in the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issues in accordance with law as contemplated under section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee was also directed to remain vigilant. The effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds of appeal, which raised legal issues regarding the validity of reassessment proceedings, notice under section 148, and approval under section 151. The Tribunal acknowledged that these legal issues could be raised at any stage, citing the Supreme Court judgment in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT. However, considering the Delhi High Court's ruling in Divine Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT, which held that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide grounds not arising from the impugned order of the first appellate authority, the Tribunal restored all the legal issues raised in the additional grounds of appeal back to the file of the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. Consequently, the grounds of appeal on merits were also restored to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issues in accordance with law. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. This condonation was subject to a cost of Rs. 2,500/- to be deposited by each assessee within 30 days. Regarding the merits, since the impugned demands arose from CPC orders and there was no adjudication by the CIT(A), the Tribunal restored the grounds raised on merits to the file of the JAO for de novo adjudication. The JAO was directed to examine the details of income earned from trucks under Section 44AE, for which the assessees would file necessary evidence. The JAO was also instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. This condonation was subject to a cost of Rs. 2,500/- to be deposited by each assessee within 30 days. Regarding the merits, since the impugned demands arose from CPC orders and there was no adjudication by the CIT(A), the Tribunal restored the grounds raised on merits to the file of the JAO for de novo adjudication. The JAO was directed to examine the details of income earned from trucks under Section 44AE, for which the assessees would file necessary evidence. The JAO was also instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not sustainable. The Tribunal found that the assessee was indeed a partner in M/s. Ramchandra Ramgopal Financial Services (RRFS), as evidenced by the partnership deed and the firm's Income Tax Return signed by the assessee. Furthermore, the assessee's ledger account in the books of the partnership firm showed a debit balance and recorded cash transactions, including the Rs. 4,00,000/- repayment, between the assessee and the firm. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee had inadvertently mentioned the partnership firm and the transaction with it in the list of unsecured loans. Since the repayment was made by the assessee to the partnership firm in his capacity as a partner, the provisions of Section 271E of the Act could not be invoked. Consequently, the findings of the CIT(A) were reversed, and the penalty was deleted. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were allowed.
The ITAT held that in the larger interest of justice and to be fair to both parties, the assessee should be afforded one more opportunity. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine without touching the merits due to non-compliance. The ITAT observed that the assessee's grievance included non-service of hearing notices, possibly due to an incorrect email ID, and non-consideration of the tax audit report. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the impugned order and remitted the issues raised in the appeal back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issues in accordance with law as contemplated under section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee was directed to update their latest email ID and contact details on the ITBA portal and to remain vigilant, avoiding adjournments unless for a reasonable cause. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 100 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was to be condoned. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had provided reasons for the delay, including a medical emergency involving a close relative, which were found to be in the nature of a reasonable cause. The Tribunal relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors and Inder Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the appeal on merits and had summarily dismissed it by not condoning the delay, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A). All issues raised before the Tribunal were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to remain vigilant. The effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that it was appropriate to afford the assessee one more opportunity to present its case. Considering the assessee had filed detailed written submissions but failed to furnish necessary details, the Tribunal decided to remit the issues raised in the appeal back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issues by a speaking order in accordance with law, as contemplated under section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee was also cautioned to remain vigilant and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes. The operative direction was to remand the matter to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessees' failure to comply before the CIT(A), attributing it to internal disputes among directors/promoters. While deeming this reason insufficient for bonafide non-compliance, the Tribunal restored both appeals to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate all issues afresh and pass a speaking order as per section 250(6) of the Act, providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessees. The assessees are cautioned against seeking unnecessary adjournments. Costs of Rs. 3,000/- each are imposed on both assessees for non-compliance, to be deposited within 30 days. The effective grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessees' failure to comply before the CIT(A), attributing it to internal disputes among directors/promoters. While deeming this reason insufficient for bonafide non-compliance, the Tribunal restored both appeals to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate all issues afresh and pass a speaking order as per section 250(6) of the Act, providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessees. The assessees are cautioned against seeking unnecessary adjournments. Costs of Rs. 3,000/- each are imposed on both assessees for non-compliance, to be deposited within 30 days. The effective grounds of appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 1,70,558/- on account of undisclosed income is sustained, as the assessee fairly admitted this income earned on which TDS was deducted and was required to be disclosed. This addition is subject to the grant of TDS reflected in Form 26AS. Regarding the addition of Rs. 8,13,375/- for time deposit, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's claim that it was a renewal of FDRs created in preceding years, not a fresh investment. Therefore, this issue was restored to the file of the Ld. JAO for necessary verification of documents to prove the renewal aspect. The Ld. JAO was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide in accordance with law. The Tribunal also condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on judicial precedents. The effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 37 days in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's illness and subsequent technical issues as reasonable causes, and relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors and Inder Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. Regarding the substantive issues of unexplained investment and undisclosed income, the Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to provide adequate submissions and evidence before the lower authorities. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the issues to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld. CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issues in accordance with law as contemplated under section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee was also cautioned to be vigilant and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 117 days in filing the appeals, citing the assessee's severe illness as a reasonable cause and referring to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors and Inder Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. The Tribunal observed that the impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(A) were not speaking orders on merits. Consequently, all issues raised in the appeals were restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld.CIT(A) was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issues in accordance with law as contemplated under Section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee was also cautioned to remain vigilant and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 117 days in filing the appeals, citing the assessee's severe illness as a reasonable cause and referring to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors and Inder Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. The Tribunal observed that the impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(A) were not speaking orders on merits. Consequently, all issues raised in the appeals were restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld.CIT(A) was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issues in accordance with law as contemplated under Section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee was also cautioned to remain vigilant and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had erred in confirming the denial of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for the savings bank account interest. The Tribunal reasoned that interest earned on SB accounts is attributable to the assessee's activities of providing credit facilities to its members. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order regarding SB account interest and directed the A.O. to allow the deduction. However, for the interest on deposits with scheduled banks, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh. The A.O. is to examine and verify if this interest is attributable to the banking business and was utilized for providing credit facilities, with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard and cooperate. The grounds of appeal were considered partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that while receiving cash gifts on marriage is a normal tradition in India, and the proviso to Section 56(2)(vi) does not impose a monetary limit, such gifts need to be examined in light of the family status and genuineness. The Tribunal noted that the assessee is employed with Indian Overseas Bank, regularly files returns, and appears to belong to a middle-class family. Although no confirmations for gifts above Rs. 10,000/- were furnished, the Tribunal considered the overall facts and circumstances, including accumulated savings. Consequently, the Tribunal treated Rs. 2,75,000/- of the deposited cash as explained and deleted the addition to that extent. The remaining addition of Rs. 25,000/- was sustained. The ratio is that while gifts on marriage are generally accepted, the genuineness and quantum must be assessed based on the assessee's financial standing and evidence provided, with a pragmatic approach to amounts within a reasonable range.
The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the issue revolved around the delay in filing Form 10B. Following the ratio of various judicial precedents, including decisions of the Gujarat High Court in cases like Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. Laxmanarayan Dev Shrishan Seva Khendra and Parul Mahila Pragati Mandal vs. Income-tax Officer (Exemption), the Tribunal reiterated that the requirement of filing Form 10B is a procedural requirement and not a mandatory condition for claiming exemption. As long as the requisite form is filed and made available during the assessment proceedings, mere delay in filing it would not adversely affect the assessee's right to claim exemption. In this case, Form 10B was filed on 31.10.2019 and was available before the processing of the return under Section 143(1) on 11.05.2020. Therefore, the denial of exemption solely on account of the delay in filing Form 10B was set aside. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the benefit of exemption under Section 11. The appeals for both AY 2019-20 and AY 2020-21 were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the issue revolved around the delay in filing Form 10B. Following the ratio of various judicial precedents, including decisions of the Gujarat High Court in cases like Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. Laxmanarayan Dev Shrishan Seva Khendra and Parul Mahila Pragati Mandal vs. Income-tax Officer (Exemption), the Tribunal reiterated that the requirement of filing Form 10B is a procedural requirement and not a mandatory condition for claiming exemption. As long as the requisite form is filed and made available during the assessment proceedings, mere delay in filing it would not adversely affect the assessee's right to claim exemption. In this case, Form 10B was filed on 31.10.2019 and was available before the processing of the return under Section 143(1) on 11.05.2020. Therefore, the denial of exemption solely on account of the delay in filing Form 10B was set aside. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the benefit of exemption under Section 11. The appeals for both AY 2019-20 and AY 2020-21 were allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 117 days in filing the appeals, citing the assessee's severe illness as a reasonable cause and referring to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors and Inder Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. The Tribunal observed that the impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(A) were not speaking orders on merits. Consequently, all issues raised in the appeals were restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld.CIT(A) was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issues in accordance with law as contemplated under Section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee was also cautioned to remain vigilant and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's first contention of bonafide belief was without merit. However, regarding the second contention, the Tribunal found merit in the argument that the penalty under Section 272A(2)(e) should be computed only up to the last date prescribed under Section 139(4) of the Act, and not until the date of filing the return in response to a notice under Section 148. The Tribunal reasoned that the obligation to furnish a return under Section 139(4A) can only be discharged within the period prescribed under Section 139(4). Once this period expires, the assessee is no longer empowered to voluntarily furnish a valid return. Therefore, the default cannot be considered continuing indefinitely, as it becomes incapable of voluntary compliance. The Tribunal followed the decisions of the Coordinate Benches in Swamy Vivekanandha Vidhyala Trust vs. ITO (Exemption) and Bethany Seva Sangam. Accordingly, the penalty was re-computed from 01.11.2015 to 31.03.2016 (the last date for filing a belated return) at Rs. 15,200/-, deleting the remaining amount of Rs. 2,71,400/-. The issue of penalty computation was thus decided in favour of the assessee, albeit with a reduced penalty.
The Tribunal, considering the rival submissions and material on record, noted the assessee's argument that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition under section 56(2)(x)(b) regarding the property purchase. The assessee emphasized having a valuation report supporting the fair market value on the agreement date, which was not filed during assessment, and that the AO did not refer the issue to the DVO. Acknowledging the assessee's claim of having a good case on merits and the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to substantiate their case with evidence. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the disputed issue was remitted to the file of the jurisdictional Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh. The assessee was directed to be provided with adequate opportunity of hearing and was expected to cooperate in submitting information. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices despite opportunities. However, the Tribunal noted that there could be various reasons for non-appearance/non-compliance which cannot be overruled. Considering the facts, circumstances, submissions, and the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to present its case with evidence. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the disputed issue was remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The assessee was directed to be provided with adequate opportunity of hearing and was expected to cooperate in submitting information for early disposal. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 333 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was to be condoned. The primary reason for the delay was the assessee's critical cardiac condition, diagnosed as complete heart blockage, necessitating hospitalization. The Tribunal found this to be a reasonable cause, relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. Since the CIT(A) had not dealt with the issues on merits, the Tribunal restored all the issues raised in the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issues in accordance with law as contemplated under section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee was also cautioned to remain vigilant and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 117 days in filing the appeals, citing the assessee's severe illness as a reasonable cause and referring to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors and Inder Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh. The Tribunal observed that the impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(A) were not speaking orders on merits. Consequently, all issues raised in the appeals were restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Ld.CIT(A) was directed to afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issues in accordance with law as contemplated under Section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee was also cautioned to remain vigilant and avoid unnecessary adjournments. The effective grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) had passed the order considering the lack of compliance despite adequate opportunities, there could be various reasons for the assessee's non-appearance or non-compliance which should not be overruled. Applying the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to present their case with evidence. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the disputed issue was remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh. The assessee was directed to be provided with adequate opportunity of hearing and was expected to cooperate in submitting information for early disposal. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.