ITAT Nagpur Judgments — February 2026

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that the tax effect in the appeal was less than the threshold limit of Rs. 60,00,000/-. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed as not maintainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the peculiar facts and the principle of substantial justice over technicality. The Tribunal noted that the addition was made based on information from an insight portal and the assessment was completed ex-parte under section 144, with the appeal dismissed for want of submission.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's plea for another opportunity, considering the initial response to the first notice. The Tribunal restored both applications to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had a valid provisional registration under Section 12AB. The AR of the assessee undertook to furnish complete details of activities. The Tribunal also found the delay in filing the appeal to be bonafide due to personal reasons of the counsel.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the delay was covered by Supreme Court directives issued during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Tribunal also emphasized the principle of natural justice.

The tribunal found merit in the assessee's request for another opportunity, considering the short notice period for the second compliance. It restored both matters to the file of the CIT(E) to reconsider the applications afresh, directing the CIT(E) to provide a fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee before passing any orders. Both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had passed ex-parte orders without granting adequate opportunity to the assessee. Given that the assessee already had provisional registration under section 12AB and had undertaken to furnish complete details of activities, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal. This implies that the Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s decision to set aside the assessment order for fresh assessment, thereby upholding the assessee's right to adequate opportunity during assessment proceedings.

Given that the Assessing Officer had already accepted the assessee's contentions and passed a fresh assessment order without any variation, the assessee sought to withdraw the appeal. The tribunal, noting no objection from the revenue, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The CIT(A) held that the denial of exemption was based on the Form 10B not being filed within the prescribed time limit. However, the CIT(Exemption) had already condoned the delay in filing Form 10B. Therefore, the addition made under section 143(1) was not sustainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that it was not intentional. The application for registration under section 80G was rejected for want of details of activities. The assessee has undertaken to furnish these details. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the late fee under Section 234E was levied based on an amendment to Section 200A(1) which came into effect from June 1, 2015. Therefore, no such fee could be charged for TDS deducted prior to this date. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions and a High Court ruling that confirmed the prospective nature of the amendment.

The Tribunal, relying on various High Court and other Tribunal precedents, held that the assessee is entitled to the full exemption under Section 54F for the investment in two adjoining flats. This is because they were converted and used as a single integrated residential unit, a fact supported by certificates from the builder and architect.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 40A(3), ruling that cash payments for capital assets like land, not claimed as P&L expenditure, do not fall under Section 40A(3). The ground regarding agricultural income was dismissed as not pressed by the assessee. For the stamp duty valuation issue in AY 2014-15, an addition of Rs. 35,000/- was deleted applying retrospective benefits of a 10% tolerance limit under Section 50C(1), and the matter of Rs. 3,75,000/- was allowed to be referred to the District Valuation Officer.

The Tribunal noted the non-appearance before the lower authorities and the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the order due to non-response without a speaking order. Therefore, it was deemed appropriate to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding it to be neither intentional nor malafide. The Tribunal restored the application under Section 12AB to the CIT(E) for reconsideration, as the initial rejection was based on a minor inadvertent error in selecting the sub-clause. The appeal under Section 80G(5) was also restored as it was consequential.

The Tribunal found that the assessee provided complete documentary evidence for the share transactions, which was not disputed by the lower authorities except through general investigation reports. The shares were sold on the BSE with Securities Transaction Tax (STT) paid, and no price manipulation by the broker was alleged. Citing various High Court and Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus to prove the genuineness of the transactions, thereby deleting the additions made under sections 68 and 69C.

The Tribunal found that the two adjoining flats were indeed converted into a single integrated residential unit. Citing various High Court and Tribunal decisions, it held that if independently acquired adjoining units are physically combined into a single residential unit for residence, the exemption under Section 54F cannot be denied. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the entire exemption claimed.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowance under Section 40A(3) for cash payments made for land purchase, holding that land is a capital asset and not an "expenditure" falling within the ambit of Sections 30 to 38 of the IT Act. The grounds related to the addition of agricultural income were dismissed as the assessee did not seriously press them. For the second assessment year, an addition of Rs. 35,000/- due to stamp duty valuation difference was deleted, applying the 110% tolerance limit retrospectively. The matter concerning the Rs. 3,75,000/- addition for valuation difference was remanded to the District Valuation Officer as agreed by both parties.

The Tribunal held that the revision initiated by the PCIT under section 263 was not legally sustainable as it was based on an audit objection and a proposal from the AO, without an independent application of mind by the PCIT. Furthermore, the AO had conducted a reasonable inquiry and accepted the assessee's explanation during the original assessment.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had inadvertently selected the wrong clause (ii) instead of clause (iii) in their application for registration. This was considered a technical mistake, and reliance was placed on a previous ITAT ruling.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee held valid registration under Section 12AB and fulfilled all five conditions prescribed under Section 80G(5). Relying on High Court precedents, the Tribunal ruled that once a trust holds valid registration under Section 12A/12AA/12AB and it has not been cancelled, a further inquiry into the genuineness of its activities or charitable purpose cannot be made at the stage of granting 80G approval. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to grant the approval.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's request for a fresh opportunity. It restored both applications to the CIT(E) for re-consideration, directing the CIT(E) to provide a fair and reasonable opportunity. The 80G(5) approval application is to be considered after the order on the 12AA/12AB registration.

The tribunal, acknowledging the non-compliance but finding merit in the assessee's request for another chance, restored both applications to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to reconsider the applications afresh after providing the assessee a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain its objects and activities.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after considering the explanation provided by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the application was rejected for want of submissions ex-parte and decided to restore the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that since the loan was received and repaid through banking channels within the same financial year, section 68 cannot be applied. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, emphasizing that when a loan is documented with bank statements and repaid, the addition under section 68 is not sustainable.

The Tribunal found that the delay in filing the appeal was not deliberate and was partly due to the assessee not being tech-savvy and receiving the intimation via email. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal held that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations when dealing with delay, especially when the delay is not wilful.

The Tribunal held that interest earned from investments in nationalized banks and cooperative banks by a credit co-operative society, maintained for liquidity and operational funds, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal relied on various precedents.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal because their application for registration under section 12AB was pending, which is a condition precedent for section 80G(5) approval. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal request.

The Tribunal, citing various High Court and its own benches' precedents, distinguished the Totgars case, noting that the assessee's funds were operational and not 'surplus' from other business activities. It held that interest earned by a credit cooperative society from fixed deposits with nationalized and co-operative banks, maintained for liquidity for its credit activities, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.

The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as the tax liability was settled under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The revenue raised no objection but sought liberty to move an appropriate application if the settlement was found to be not final later. The Tribunal considered the submissions and allowed the appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal and the revenue's no objection. It was noted that the matter had been settled under the DTVSV scheme.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application for withdrawal of both appeals as the matter has been settled under the DTVSV scheme. The revenue's representative had no objection.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and the contents of Form-4. It was held that since the assessee has availed the benefit of the DTVSV-24 scheme and Form-4 was issued, the appeal is infructuous.

Claims, including tax liabilities, that were not part of the approved resolution plan are extinguished. The moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC prevents the continuation of proceedings against the corporate debtor. The Income Tax Department's claims, not being part of the resolution plan, are thus extinguished.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had no taxable income and therefore no obligation to pay advance tax. Relying on decisions from coordinate benches, the Tribunal held that the Id. CIT(A)'s order was not in consonance with the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals in the interest of substantial justice. It held that, following the NCLT-approved resolution plan under Section 31(1) of the IBC, all claims, including tax liabilities, not made before the resolution professional stand extinguished. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass orders to modify/cancel/reduce the demand according to Section 156A of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal observed that the tax effect in both appeals was below the monetary limit set by the CBDT for filing appeals. Consequently, the appeals were deemed not maintainable and were dismissed.

The Tribunal restored grounds related to cash deposits and cash found in hand to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing them for statistical purposes. Grounds related to standard deduction on rental income, interest, and salary were also restored. General grounds were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that since the tax effect in both appeals was below the monetary limit set by the CBDT, the appeals were not maintainable and were dismissed. The Revenue was granted liberty to seek revival if the tax effect was later found to be higher or if an exception clause applied.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's books of account were audited and supported by vouchers. The capital account showed a substantial opening balance, and there were consistent withdrawals by the proprietor. The gross turnover and gross profit had significantly increased, with a majority of sales being in cash, which was not disputed by the revenue. The Tribunal found that the cash withdrawn was utilized for the deposit.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had furnished all possible documents, including banking proofs, invoices with VAT details, and lorry registration numbers. It noted that the Revenue had no independent evidence against the purchases other than old Sales Tax data and that burdening the assessee to compel vendors to appear after 15 years was unreasonable. As the assessee's books were not rejected and other sales/purchases were accepted, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the rent received by the assessee from her son was reasonable and at a fair market rate, reversing the AO's addition. The Tribunal also found that the salary paid to the son was for business purposes and allowed the expense, setting aside the disallowance made by the AO.