ITAT Nagpur Judgments — April 2026

The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition for suppressed sales, finding no corroborative evidence for the mobile messages. The addition on account of the surrender was also deleted as it was made to cover potential discrepancies and was later retracted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient material to substantiate the retraction of statements, highlighting issues with the stock measurement methodology. The Tribunal found that the AO failed to contradict the assessee's evidence and that the closing stock was ultimately accepted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had explained all credit and debit entries with documentary evidence, which the AO did not rebut. The Tribunal also found that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were factually incorrect and lacked a rational nexus with the material on record, making the notice under Section 148 invalid.

The Tribunal held that in view of the binding directions of the High Court, the issue was covered in favour of the assessee. The assessee was subsequently issued a copy of the 12A registration certificate.

The Tribunal, noting the absence of the assessee and the need for a fair opportunity, decided to remit the matters back to the CIT(Exemption). The CIT(Exemption) is directed to re-adjudicate the applications after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the entire cash deposits cannot be added as unexplained income under Section 68, as they represent business receipts and only the profit element is taxable. The AO is directed to estimate the income by applying a reasonable net profit rate on the turnover.

The Tribunal, noting the absence of the assessee and the need for a fair hearing, decided to set aside the impugned orders. The matters were remitted back to the CIT(Exemption) to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal held that in view of the binding directions of the High Court, the issue was covered in favour of the assessee. The assessee was subsequently issued a copy of the 12A registration certificate.

The Tribunal held that Section 43CA applies to the transfer of tangible immovable property (land or building). Transferable Developmental Rights (TDRs) are intangible rights and not land or building per se. Following judicial precedents, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order deleting the addition.

The Tribunal held that Section 50C is applicable only to capital assets and not to stock-in-trade. Based on documentary evidence and consistent accounting treatment, the land was considered stock-in-trade, making Section 50C inapplicable.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was unsustainable as the assessment itself was set aside due to non-service of notices. The assessee's failure to comply was found to be bona fide and due to circumstances beyond his control, satisfying the reasonable cause exception under Section 273B.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal had become infructuous as the assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order had already been allowed, leading to the deletion of all additions. The CIT(A)'s order had lost its efficacy.

The Tribunal held that corpus donations are capital receipts and not taxable, irrespective of whether the trust has 12AA registration. The disallowance made by the lower authorities was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the land was indeed agricultural land at the time of sale and therefore not a capital asset. The subsequent conversion of the land's character by the purchaser was deemed inconsequential. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated beyond four years, based on existing records without any failure to disclose by the assessee, are invalid. The Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT and the first appeal before the CIT(A) by adopting a justice-oriented approach and relying on Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal held that the delay was not deliberate and restored the issues back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal considered the fact that the assessment order was rendered null and void by the High Court. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal found that 'Hishob Patti' alone might not conclusively prove commission income and was not examined by lower authorities. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh estimation of commission income, considering the relevant Maharashtra APMC Act.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged their primary onus by providing documentary evidence of the share transactions, including contract notes, bank statements, and demat statements. The Assessing Officer failed to provide contrary evidence or an opportunity for cross-examination.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on the reasonable cause shown by the assessee. The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the cash payment and stamp duty/registration expenses with bank withdrawal details. Regarding the penalty, it was held that multiple notices for the same information constitute a single default, and considering the assessee's subsequent participation, the penalty for subsequent defaults was deleted.

The Tribunal held that interest earned by credit cooperative societies on investments made with nationalized and cooperative banks, for maintaining liquidity for their banking business with members, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The denial of this deduction by the lower authorities was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the investment of Rs. 1.50 lakh was made on 28.06.2011, which falls under AY 2012-13. Therefore, the addition made for AY 2015-16 was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that interest earned by credit cooperative societies on investments made with nationalized and cooperative banks, for maintaining liquidity for their banking business with members, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The denial of this deduction by the lower authorities was set aside.

The Tribunal held that interest earned by a cooperative society on temporary investments of surplus operational funds in nationalized banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as it is ancillary to its business of providing credit facilities.

The Tribunal held that interest earned from investments with cooperative and nationalized banks is to be treated as income from banking business and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P. This decision followed a previous ruling in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing a justice-oriented approach and reliance on Supreme Court judgments. It held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was based on surmises and conjectures, as the revenue failed to provide evidence of the alleged investment from the assessee's bank account.

The Tribunal held that since the sum was part of business receipts, only the profit element should be taxed. Therefore, an addition of 8% of the sum was sustained, and the remaining addition was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the revised Tax Audit Report, clarifying the transaction as a loan given by the assessee, was not placed before the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing reasonable cause and the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. The appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits, as the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits previously.

The Tribunal held that a difference of up to 10% between the Fair Market Value and Stamp Duty Value should be ignored, and no addition should be made under Section 56(2)(vii)(b)(ii). For the unexplained investment, the Tribunal allowed partial relief, finding that the assessee could explain Rs. 4.00 lakh of the amount.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is to examine whether the land is agricultural and thus exempt, or if it's a capital asset, compute the capital gains with due consideration to the valuation report.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's addition was faulty as the assessee had not claimed long-term capital gains, and the sale transaction was not disputed. The source of funds for the investment was also found to be sufficiently explained by the assessee's bank statements.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While the cash deposits were found to be out of business sale proceeds, the return of income was not filed. Therefore, profit was estimated at 8% on the turnover, and a partial addition was sustained.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the cash payment and stamp duty/registration expenses with bank withdrawal details. Regarding the penalty, it was held that multiple notices for the same information constitute a single default, and considering the assessee's subsequent participation, the penalty for subsequent defaults was deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's bonafide reasons and rural background. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee and decide the issue of addition under Section 68 afresh. The CIT(A) may call for a Remand Report if necessary.

The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves another opportunity to present their case. The issues were remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, with directions to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing and consider the submitted documents.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present evidence for the cash deposits. The JAO was directed to adjudicate the matter on merits after considering the submitted documents.

The Tribunal, following the principles of natural justice and a Bombay High Court judgment, decided to provide the assessee with one final opportunity to present their case. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on the assessee's illness, citing a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that interest earned by credit cooperative societies on investments made with nationalized and cooperative banks, for maintaining liquidity for their banking business with members, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The denial of this deduction by the lower authorities was set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte as the assessee failed to appear multiple times. Considering the prayer for one more opportunity and the nature of the business, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order and afford the assessee a chance to present their case before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the share transactions. Therefore, the sale proceeds could not be treated as unexplained cash credit, and the LTCG exemption was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was bad in law as the AO failed to comply with the mandatory procedures under Section 148A and did not provide all relevant information to the assessee. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to explain the purchase and sale of shares, making the transactions genuine. Consequently, the sale consideration could not be treated as unexplained cash credit, and the claimed LTCG exemption was accepted.

The Tribunal noted that the issue regarding the validity of notices u/s 148, particularly in light of the Hexaware Technologies Ltd. case, is pending before the Supreme Court. Therefore, the Tribunal decided not to grant relief solely on this ground. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Observing that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order and considering the assessee's contention that no property was sold by them, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance before the lower authorities and acknowledged the dispute among owners/promoters as a reason. However, considering the assessee's prayer and the potential error in estimating profit based on bank credits instead of turnover from GST/VAT returns, the Tribunal decided to remand the case for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging a 'justice-oriented approach' and citing Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal also decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) due to the ex-parte dismissal.