ITAT Nagpur Judgments — August 2026

The Tribunal held that the sale consideration received on the sale of shares could not be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the AO failed to establish the assessee's involvement in bogus LTCG and upheld the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that since the foundation of the impugned assessment orders (passed under Section 147 r.w.s 263) was based on an order that was already quashed by the Tribunal, the current appeals should be sustained.

The Tribunal dismissed the grounds challenging the reopening of assessment, finding that the AO had validly assumed jurisdiction. However, the grounds related to the addition on merits were restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by adopting a liberal approach, citing Supreme Court judgments. Since the CIT(A) had not decided the case on merits, the Tribunal restored all issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing sufficient cause. The Tribunal restored all issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal restored all issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for de novo verification and adjudication. The assessee was directed to be vigilant and not seek unnecessary adjournments.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer must independently establish concealment of income, even if the assessment order is accepted. The addition was based solely on inferences from an excel sheet without corroborative evidence, and the assessee's explanation was not adequately rebutted.

The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in invoking Section 68 as the cash deposits were recorded as cash sales in the assessee's regular books of account, which were not rejected. The addition was based on suspicion without cogent material to disprove the assessee's explanation.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 as the AO had conducted due enquiry and taken a conscious view. The Tribunal also found the PCIT's reasoning to treat a cooperative society as an AOP for MMR application to be legally untenable.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was vitiated because the assessment should have been initiated under Section 153C, given the reliance on materials found during a search in another entity. The defect was considered non-curable.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was vitiated because the assessment should have been initiated under Section 153C, given the reliance on materials found during a search in another entity. The defect was considered non-curable.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking revisional jurisdiction as the AO had conducted due enquiry and the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction was unsustainable on facts and law. The Tribunal quashed the revision order and restored the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the Mine Closure Expenses constituted a crystallized liability, supported by judicial precedents from the jurisdictional High Court and other benches. The reopening was also found to be based on a change of opinion without fresh tangible evidence.

The Tribunal held that since the foundation of the impugned assessment orders (passed under Section 147 r.w.s 263) was based on an order that was already quashed by the Tribunal, the current appeals should be sustained.

The Tribunal held that since the material relied upon was the outcome of search proceedings initiated before April 1, 2021, the AO should have invoked Section 153C instead of Section 147. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was invalid.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT failed to conduct independent inquiry to establish that the assessment order was erroneous. The Assessing Officer (AO) had already examined the issue and gathered relevant evidence, and the PCIT's differing opinion did not automatically make the AO's order unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that since the material relied upon was the outcome of search proceedings initiated before April 1, 2021, the AO should have invoked Section 153C instead of Section 147. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was invalid.

The Tribunal found that the AO had all the relevant material and had made inquiries. The Principal CIT's conclusion that the AO had not verified purchases and sundry creditors was incorrect. The Tribunal held that the Principal CIT's revisionary order was not sustainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the assessee failed to furnish necessary evidence to support the claim for deduction under Section 54F. Therefore, the issue of verifying the deduction was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's profession and the circumstances of the pandemic. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) after finding a reasonable cause. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, as the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on its merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the violations of natural justice and the ex-parte assessment, the Tribunal restored all effective issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of the loan, and that the cash deposit additions were justified by the evidence. The unsecured loan mismatch was explained by a grouping error in accounting software.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were passed beyond the period of limitation. The relevant date for calculating the limitation period was the date of initiation of penalty proceedings in the assessment order, not the date of issuance of the show cause notice.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were passed beyond the period of limitation. It was decided that the date of initiation of penalty proceedings in the assessment order, not the date of issuing the show cause notice, is the relevant date for calculating the limitation period.

The Tribunal held that the penalty orders were passed beyond the period of limitation. The relevant date for calculating the limitation period was the date of initiation of penalty proceedings in the assessment order, not the date of issuance of the show cause notice.

The Tribunal noted that a coordinate bench had previously quashed the assessment order. Since the penalty proceedings were based on the assessment order, the penalty was no longer sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the AO's approach was contradictory and lacked proper inquiry, especially concerning the existence of M/s. Inex Infotech Pvt. Ltd. It also noted that the proviso to Section 68, which requires explaining the source of the source, was not applicable to the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the burden under Section 68 by providing primary evidence like ledger accounts, confirmations, ITRs, and bank statements. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the requirement to explain the 'source of source' was introduced later and not applicable to the assessment year in question, and that the loans had been repaid.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid as it was issued beyond the prescribed time limit under Section 149(1)(b), as the estimated escaped income was below the threshold. The Tribunal also noted that the addition was made solely on uncorroborated material.

The Tribunal held that the subsidy received was a capital receipt and should be excluded from MAT computation. The AO should have considered subsequent favorable orders for the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the applications as not maintainable because the assessee had filed them under inapplicable statutory provisions. The assessee's failure to take effective steps to rectify the error or respond to the CIT(E)'s notice contributed to this decision.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the applications as not maintainable because the assessee had filed them under inapplicable statutory provisions. The assessee's failure to take effective steps to rectify the error or respond to the CIT(E)'s notice contributed to this decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide cogent evidence to justify the higher interest rate paid to related parties. The arguments regarding commercial expediency and flexibility in repayment were not supported by documentary evidence.

The Tribunal held that the expenditure for technical services, though surrendered, did not qualify as 'undisclosed income' under Section 271AAB as no falsity was proven and no incriminating material was found. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had acquired title to the property before April 1, 1981, making the AO's reliance on the 1982 sale deed erroneous for indexation. It also found that the lower authorities had not dealt with the assessee's explanations regarding expenses like electrical fittings and short-deposited VAT/service tax appropriately.

The Tribunal held that mere recording of cash sales in books is not conclusive proof of genuineness. The assessee failed to produce primary evidence like stock registers or VAT assessment orders to substantiate the cash sales, making the explanation for deposits tenuous.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to present her case before the CIT(A) due to circumstances beyond her control.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to present her case before the CIT(A) due to circumstances beyond her control.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to present her case before the CIT(A) due to circumstances beyond her control.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to present her case before the CIT(A) due to circumstances beyond her control.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application solely on account of a bona fide and technical procedural error in selecting the wrong clause was not justified. The CIT(E) should have allowed the assessee an opportunity to rectify the defect.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish eligibility for Section 80-IA deduction due to lack of evidence and procedural non-compliance. It also held that delayed deposit of employees' PF/ESI contributions attracts disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) as per the Supreme Court ruling in Checkmate Services.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted sufficient opportunity to furnish the required details. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, with a direction to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when the returned income is accepted without any variation. The mere fact that the return was filed in response to a notice under Section 148 does not automatically imply concealment of income.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application solely on account of a technical defect in selecting the wrong clause was not justified. The mistake was bona fide and procedural, and the assessee should be given an opportunity to rectify it.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application solely on account of a bona fide and technical procedural lapse in selecting the wrong clause was not justified. The CIT(E) should have allowed the assessee an opportunity to rectify the defect.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and set aside the CIT(E)'s orders. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to furnish documents and submissions.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT wrongly invoked Section 263 as the AO had conducted due enquiries and accepted the assessee's claim. Furthermore, a coordinate bench had already allowed similar loss as business loss in the assessee's own case, creating a binding precedent.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish eligibility for Section 80-IA deduction due to lack of evidence and procedural non-compliance. It also held that delayed deposit of employees' PF/ESI contributions attracts disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) as per the Supreme Court ruling in Checkmate Services.