ITAT Nagpur Judgments — March 2026
19 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal noted the assessee's request for another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). Since the original assessment was ex-parte and the Departmental Representative had no objection, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a deceased person without bringing the legal heirs on record is void ab initio. Consequently, revision proceedings under section 263 based on such an invalid assessment order are also unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the market value of power supplied by a State Electricity Board to industrial consumers should be considered the market value for the purpose of Section 80-IA. The Tribunal followed the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Jindal Steel and Power Limited and other High Court and Tribunal decisions, which supported using the industrial consumer tariff as a valid comparable for internal benchmarking.
The Tribunal held that the market value for the power supplied should be benchmarked against the rate at which electricity distribution companies supply electricity to industrial consumers, not the rate at which power is procured from generating companies. Relying on Supreme Court and High Court decisions, the Tribunal found that the MSEDCL's industrial sale tariff is an appropriate comparable.
The Tribunal held that mere receipt of money under an agreement to sell does not automatically result in taxable income. Since no sale deed was executed, no transfer occurred as per Section 2(47) of the Act, and the amount retained the character of an advance. Furthermore, the assessment was vitiated due to the absence of a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without dealing with the merits of the case, it was appropriate in the interest of justice to restore the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was not with malafide intention and should be condoned based on a liberal interpretation of "sufficient cause". The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that at the stage of registration, the inquiry is limited to the objects of the trust and prima facie genuineness of activities, which were not doubted. It found the rejection based on insufficiency of evidence and bank transactions unjustified, as these fall under assessment proceedings, and directed the CIT(E) to grant registration.
The Tribunal found discrepancies in the assessee's explanation regarding the cash in hand and the SBN deposits. However, it also noted that the AO's addition was largely based on suspicion and that the entire cash in hand was not necessarily in SBNs. Therefore, 50% of the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10B, especially considering the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, was a procedural lapse and not a ground to deny the benefit of exemption under sections 11 and 12. Citing various High Court and ITAT rulings, the Tribunal considered the filing of Form 10B as directory, not mandatory.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received on compulsory acquisition of land, including the interest component, is exempt from tax under Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act. The lower authorities erred in treating the compensation amount as income from other sources.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was non-speaking and lacked merit-based discussion. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to explain the property transaction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), noting that a significant portion of the delay occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal set aside the findings of the CIT(A)/NFAC and restored the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that a portion of the land was acquired by NHAI and the DVO's valuation for the remaining 0.87 hectare land was Rs. 95,12,100/-, which was less than the purchase consideration. Therefore, there was no justification for invoking Section 56(2)(x).
