ITAT Nagpur Judgments — August 2026

The Tribunal admitted additional grounds challenging the validity of the reassessment notice and assumption of jurisdiction. Considering the need for fresh examination of evidence and the assessee's willingness to provide further documentation, the matter was restored to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) regarding jewellery was erroneous. It found that the explanation regarding the source and ownership of the jewellery was reasonable and within the limits prescribed by CBDT Instruction No. 1916. The Tribunal also held that Section 115BBE was not applicable to the assessment year in question.

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 interest income earned on deposits with nationalized banks and other cooperative banks is an allowable deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, following established judicial precedents.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that there is no express bar in Section 87A or Section 111A of the Income Tax Act to deny rebate under Section 87A on tax payable on short-term capital gains. The assessees are entitled to the rebate.

The Tribunal held that there is no express bar in Section 87A or Section 111A to deny the rebate under Section 87A on tax payable on short-term capital gains. Therefore, the assessees are entitled to the rebate.

The tribunal held that the NFAC erred in applying Section 249(4)(b) as the assessee had no advance tax liability. Since the merits of the case were not addressed, the matter was remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned on deposits with nationalized banks and other cooperative banks is an allowable deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, following established judicial precedents.

The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS, 2019, are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned on deposits with nationalized banks and other cooperative banks is an allowable deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, following established judicial precedents.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the issue on merit. Considering the assessee's plea of domestic difficulties and the lack of merit-based adjudication, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to reasonable cause. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee one more opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS, 2019, are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS, 2019, are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS, 2019, are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS, 2019, are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS, 2019, are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal held that the amounts received under the BSNL VRS, 2019, are in the nature of retrenchment compensation and are capital receipts exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, not Section 10(10C).

The Tribunal held that since the penalties were dependent on the quantum addition, the appeals relating to penalties should also be restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that since the penalties were dependent on the quantum addition, the appeals relating to penalties should also be restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that since the penalties were dependent on the quantum addition, the appeals relating to penalties should also be restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that since the penalties were dependent on the quantum addition, the appeals relating to penalties should also be restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 270A was not in accordance with the law because it failed to specify the particular clause of Section 270A(9) under which the penalty was being levied. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the show cause notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 270A was not in accordance with the law because it failed to specify the particular clause of Section 270A(9) under which the penalty was being levied. Consequently, the penalty proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the Assessing Officer to frame the assessment denovo. The assessee was given an opportunity to demonstrate the details of credits in the bank account to the satisfaction of the AO.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contentions regarding discrepancies in cash deposit figures, which directly impacted the additions. Therefore, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for verification and fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition/disallowance, which formed the basis for the penalty, had been deleted by a previous order of the Tribunal, the penalty itself had no basis and was liable to be deleted.