ITAT Nagpur Judgments — April 2026

The Tribunal held that the land sold was stock-in-trade and not a capital asset, as evidenced by development agreements, Power of Attorney, revenue records, consistent accounting treatment, and the department's acceptance of similar transactions in prior years. Therefore, Section 50C was not applicable, and the addition made on account of long-term capital gains was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that section 43CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, applies only to the transfer of tangible immovable property being land or building or both, and not to intangible rights like TDRs. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not sustainable.

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 held that the reassessment proceedings initiated beyond four years are invalid if based solely on existing assessment records and without any failure by the assessee to disclose material facts. Citing the Bombay High Court judgment in Crystal Pride Developers, it was stated that the Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction to reopen a concluded assessment under such circumstances.

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 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. 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 held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including share allotment, demat statements, contract notes, and bank statements, to substantiate the genuineness of the transactions. Relying on the jurisdictional High Court's precedents and its own earlier decisions, the Tribunal found no material to prove the assessee's involvement in price manipulation or accommodation entries.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including share allotment letters, demat statements, contract notes, and bank statements, to substantiate the purchase and sale of shares. It followed precedents from the Jurisdictional High Court and its own coordinate benches, which held that such additions are unsustainable without specific evidence of the assessee's involvement in price manipulation or accommodation entries.

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 held that the assessee had provided substantial documentary evidence, including purchase invoices, GST returns, bank statements, and E-way bills, to substantiate the genuineness of the purchases. Furthermore, the sales corresponding to these purchases were also accepted, and payments were made through banking channels. The Tribunal noted that similar purchases from the same vendor were accepted in the case of an associate concern. Consequently, the addition made by the AO was deemed arbitrary and unjustified.

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.

The Tribunal held that a notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, which is neither manually nor digitally signed, is invalid. This defect violates statutory mandates and is not curable, rendering the notice and subsequent reassessment proceedings void. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decisions on similar matters.

The tribunal held that the second reopening of assessment was bad in law as it was based on a change of opinion and lacked tangible material. Furthermore, the addition of the entire bank deposits without considering the nature of transactions and without applying the peak credit principle was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was not justified because the report of the Investigation Wing was not provided to the assessee, and the subsequent cancellation of approval cannot deny the deduction as per the Explanation to section 35(1). The Tribunal also noted that the donation was made through banking channels and was allowed in regular assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the rejection was purely technical and procedural, as the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to rectify the defect of filing under the wrong clause. The Tribunal emphasized a substantive approach over a hyper-technical one in matters of charitable trust registration.

The Tribunal held that the defect in filing the application under an incorrect clause was procedural/technical. The CIT(E) should not have rejected the applications without examining the objects and genuineness of the assessee's activities. The assessee was not given adequate opportunity to rectify the defect.

The Tribunal held that the land was agricultural land as per revenue records and located beyond municipal limits, fulfilling the conditions for exemption under Section 2(14) of the Act. They noted that agricultural income was consistently reported and the non-agricultural conversion was initiated by the purchaser, not the assessee. The Tribunal relied on precedents where similar documentary evidence was accepted.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had not considered the merits of the application. Given the assessee's willingness to resubmit all necessary documents and the fact that the CIT(E) had not examined the case on its merits, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to reconsider the matter afresh.

The Tribunal held that at the stage of granting registration/approval, only a prima facie satisfaction of the objects and genuineness of activities is required. The CIT(E) had not conducted a thorough inquiry and had failed to bring on record conclusive evidence to disprove the charitable nature of the trust's activities or its alleged benefit to a specific community. Deficiencies noted by the CIT(E) should be addressed during assessment proceedings, not lead to outright rejection at this stage.

The Tribunal held that the revisionary order passed by the CIT(E) under section 263 was invalid as it was invoked beyond the period of limitation. Furthermore, the issues raised by the CIT(E) were already considered and accepted by the AO during the original assessment proceedings, rendering the revision unnecessary and without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the revisionary proceedings under section 263 were initiated beyond the period of limitation, rendering them void ab initio. It further observed that the original assessment order had considered all issues and evidence related to the voluntary contributions, making the revision order unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that at the stage of granting registration/approval, only prima facie satisfaction regarding objects and genuineness of activities is required, not exhaustive verification. Deficiencies in documentation or absence of testimonials do not automatically invalidate the genuineness of activities, especially when primary objects are charitable. The CIT(E) failed to provide conclusive evidence for alleged benefit to a specific community. The Tribunal relied on a coordinate bench decision stating that registration proceedings are distinct from assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the revision order passed by the CIT(E) under section 263 was barred by limitation, as it was invoked beyond the prescribed time limit from the date of the original assessment order. Additionally, the issue of voluntary contributions had already been considered and accepted by the Assessing Officer during the original assessment.