ITAT Nagpur Judgments — May 2026

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's lack of inquiry into the applicability of Section 56(2)(vii)(b) on the difference between purchase consideration and stamp duty valuation made the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. Therefore, the PCIT was justified in invoking Section 263.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim was based on a debatable legal issue regarding Place of Effective Management (POEM) and relevant CBDT circulars, making their explanation bona fide. The Tribunal found no element of deliberate misrepresentation or suppression of facts to justify the penalty for misreporting.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was unsustainable as the Assessing Officer had examined the issue of agricultural income. The Tribunal found that Section 69A was not applicable and the PCIT had virtually conducted a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the estimation of net profit at 10% by the AO was arbitrary and directed recomputation at 6%. It also held that separate additions under section 68 for sundry creditors and unsecured loans were not sustainable after the rejection of books of account.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim was based on a debatable legal issue regarding Place of Effective Management (POEM) and relevant CBDT circulars, making their explanation bona fide. The Tribunal found no element of deliberate misrepresentation or suppression of facts to justify the penalty for misreporting.

The Tribunal held that since the assessment order was a speaking order and not a best judgment assessment under section 144, and the assessee had furnished necessary documents, the penalty under section 271(1)(b) was not justified. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions where similar penalties were deleted when the Assessing Officer was satisfied with the overall compliance.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was justified due to the AO's lack of inquiry into the genuineness of purchases and the correct profit embedded in the transactions. The assessment was deemed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest.

The Tribunal held that the source of investment for the property was sufficiently explained through salary income and savings of the assessee and his wife. Regarding the difference in valuation, considering the locational disadvantage and similar sale transactions in the vicinity, no addition was warranted.

The Tribunal condoned the 2-day delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and could seek a remand report from the AO.

The Tribunal restored the issue of unexplained investment to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide necessary details, and the Assessing Officer was instructed to afford a proper opportunity.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, following the principle of consistency and stare decisis. The addition was restricted to the profit element embedded in the unrecorded sales, as the Revenue failed to provide distinguishing facts from earlier years.

The CIT(A) rightly set aside the assessment order to the file of the AO for denovo assessment, as substantial documentary evidence required factual verification. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It further held that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 11 as the return was filed within the time allowed under Section 139(4) of the Act.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted sufficient opportunity to furnish details. The CIT(E) was directed to re-examine the submissions and grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard before deciding on the registration.

The Tribunal noted that the issue of notice validity under section 148 by the Jurisdictional AO versus the Faceless Assessing Officer is pending before the Supreme Court. Following a previous decision of the same bench, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the ground regarding the non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) was devoid of merit as no return was filed. However, the issue of upholding gross receipts at Rs. 1,42,87,000/- was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that VDIS and Gold Bond certificates were eventually produced and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for verification of the source and use of the gold.

The Tribunal upheld the denial of exemption under Section 54B. It found that while the land was recorded as agricultural, there was insufficient evidence of actual active use for agricultural purposes, such as sale bills or other supporting documents, to satisfy the conditions of Section 54B.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a cooperative society, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P on the enhanced profits arising from disallowances, following a CBDT circular. Therefore, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits even if ex-parte. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the actual investment for the year was Rs. 5,25,000/-, and Rs. 30,000/- of this was accrued interest. It further held that Rs. 4,50,000/- of the funds were explained, leading to a sustained addition of only Rs. 45,000/-.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had correctly disclosed income under various heads in the Profit and Loss account and the return. The enhancement by the CPC was due to a mistake in filing the return, leading to income being taxed twice.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271AAB was defective as it did not specify the exact limb of the section under which the penalty was being levied. Consequently, the subsequent penalty order was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271AAB was defective as it did not specify the exact limb under which the penalty was being levied. Consequently, the subsequent penalty order was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that proceedings initiated against a deceased person are void ab initio and cannot be cured. The CIT(A) rightly quashed the assessment order as it was passed against a deceased assessee without proper notice to the legal heir.

The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a deceased person is a nullity and void ab initio. Consequently, the order passed by the CIT(A) based on such an assessment order is unsustainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before itself and before the CIT(A). Considering the assessee's circumstances and the lack of objection, the Tribunal remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the 11-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on justice-oriented principles. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the assessee did not effectively participate before the CIT(A) and therefore, the matter should be remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on sufficient cause shown by the assessee. The appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, providing the assessee an opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled all conditions for exemption under Section 10(38) and that the AO failed to provide concrete evidence to disprove the genuineness of the transactions. Relying on previous judgments concerning the same scrip, the Tribunal found the LTCG to be genuine.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding it was not intentional. On merits, the Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to explain the cash deposits as business sale proceeds, which were subsequently remitted to the supplier, and therefore the addition made by the AO was unjustified.