ITAT Panaji Judgments — February 2026

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It ruled that both excess and shortage of inventory items must be considered for a wholesome computation of stock differences. The tribunal found that the AO arbitrarily considered only items enhancing taxation while ignoring those reducing it, and that the assessee had already declared sufficient additional income.

The ITAT allowed the appeal in part. It held that community development and village welfare expenses were allowable as the assessee was a partnership firm, not subject to CSR provisions, and the genuineness of expenses was not doubted. However, regarding stamp duty and registration charges for mining lease renewal, the ITAT upheld the treatment as capital expenditure, to be amortized over the lease period, citing a similar precedent.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance without providing proper opportunity and overlooking the fact that the assessee's case did not satisfy the conditions under Section 115BAD(2). The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal, relying on previous judgments, held that interest income derived by a cooperative society from deposits with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. However, the eligibility for deduction on interest from scheduled banks under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) was not explicitly addressed in the final ruling.

The ITAT held that the AO was justified in estimating income as the books of account were intentionally destroyed, making specific rejection under Section 145(3) impossible. The tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions, as the assessee's conduct impeded the assessment process. The tribunal proceeded ex-parte due to the assessee's repeated non-appearance.

The tribunal held that the assessees failed to provide conclusive evidence that the share transactions occurred in AY 2010-11. The shareholder lists as of March 31, 2011, included the assessees' names, while the list for March 31, 2010, did not. Therefore, the additions made under Section 56(2)(vii) for AY 2011-12 were confirmed.

The tribunal held that the assessees failed to provide conclusive evidence that the share transactions occurred in AY 2010-11. The shareholder lists as of March 31, 2011, included the assessees' names, while the list for March 31, 2010, did not. Therefore, the additions made under Section 56(2)(vii) for AY 2011-12 were confirmed.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remitting the entire disputed issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. It emphasized providing the assessee with another opportunity to present their case and evidence, citing principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue of unexplained stock back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was due to the CIT(A) not adequately considering the assessee's submissions and evidence that the chilli powder stock belonged to another entity, M/s Home Spices, and was recorded in their books.

The Tribunal found that both PANs belonged to the same entity (CIL/CIPL) and that the assessment order was uploaded against the new PAN as per a High Court directive. Therefore, the NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal in limine, and the appeal should be admitted and adjudicated on merits, treating the new PAN as the successor of the old PAN.

The Tribunal found that the notices were indeed received by the assessee after the rejection order. Therefore, it set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the case for a de novo consideration, granting the assessee another opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, remitting the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. This was done to provide the assessee another opportunity to present their case and evidence, subject to payment of a cost of Rs. 2,000 to the Income Tax Department.

The Tribunal, relying on previous judgments and the principle that the situs of the Assessing Officer determines jurisdiction, dismissed the appeal as not maintainable before the Panaji Bench. It granted leave to the assessee to file the appeal before the appropriate ITAT bench that has territorial jurisdiction over the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable due to lack of territorial jurisdiction, citing previous judgments and ITAT rules that establish the situs of the Assessing Officer as the decisive factor for appellate jurisdiction. The assessee was granted leave to file the appeal before the appropriate bench.

The Tribunal remanded the issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for dealings with nominal/associate members back to the AO for verification, citing a Supreme Court decision. It allowed the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income from cooperative banks, relying on previous Tribunal decisions that cooperative banks are treated as cooperative societies for this purpose.

The Tribunal remanded the issue of deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for dealings with nominal/associate members back to the AO for verification. It allowed the deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income from cooperative banks, citing previous tribunal decisions that cooperative banks are treated as cooperative societies for this purpose.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the assessee's submissions and evidence, nor did it address the request for a virtual hearing. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need for adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that a 'Souharda' cooperative society registered under state law is a 'cooperative society' under Section 2(19) of the IT Act, making it eligible for Section 80P(2)(a)(i) deduction. It also ruled that interest income from cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The issue of dealings with nominal/associate members was remanded for re-verification.

The Tribunal held that interest income derived by a cooperative society from deposits with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act, citing previous Tribunal decisions. However, the eligibility for deduction on interest from scheduled/commercial banks and income tax refunds under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) was not explicitly decided in the provided text.

The Tribunal focused solely on the condonation of delay, noting that the assessee's claims of being unaware of the orders and lacking professional services were not substantiated. The CIT(A) orders were communicated via email and post, and the assessee's previous chartered accountant confirmed forwarding communications. The Tribunal found the delay to be deliberate and not supported by sufficient cause.

The ITAT dismissed the appeal, finding that the assessee's claim of being unaware of the impugned order was false, as confirmed by their own appeal memo. The tribunal noted the assessee's consistent failure to respond to notices from the tax authorities, indicating a lack of diligence and bona fide reasons for the delay.

The Tribunal noted the inordinate delay in filing the appeals and emphasized that while the length of delay is not the sole factor, the sufficiency and bona fides of the explanation are crucial. The assessee's claims of unawareness of orders and lack of professional services were contradicted by evidence of communication to the provided email addresses and correspondence with the chartered accountant. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay to be not bona fide and lacking sufficient cause.

The Tribunal focused solely on the condonation of delay, noting the inordinate delay of 902 days. It found that the assessee's explanations, including unawareness of orders and displacement of professional services, were not sufficiently substantiated, especially given that notices and orders were communicated via email and post, and the assessee had previously filed first appeals in time. The Tribunal emphasized that the length of delay is secondary to the sufficiency and bona fide nature of the explanation.

The tribunal focused solely on the condonation of delay, noting that the assessee's claims of being unaware of the orders and lacking professional services were contradicted by evidence of email communications and timely filing of initial appeals. The tribunal found the reasons for the inordinate delay not to be bona fide or supported by sufficient cause.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without sufficient consideration of the assessee's reasons for non-compliance. Citing principles of natural justice, the Tribunal remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee another opportunity to present its case.

The ITAT found the non-compliance to be accidental and undeliberate. It set aside both rejection orders and remanded one application back to the CIT(E) for de-novo consideration, directing that the assessee be given at least three effective hearings to comply. The other application was deemed infructuous.

The ITAT found that the non-compliance was accidental, as the assessee mistakenly sent documents to the jurisdictional ITO instead of the registering authority. Therefore, the ITAT set aside the rejection orders and remanded one application back to the CIT(E) for de-novo consideration, granting the assessee further opportunities to comply.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on this specific issue and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo consideration. The assessee is to be given an adequate opportunity to substantiate their claim, and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal restored the disputed issue of unexplained investment to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. It allowed the admission of additional evidence by the assessee, which included details of loan sanction and property acquisition due to borrower default, as these evidences were crucial for a fair decision and were not previously examined by lower authorities.

The Tribunal upheld the NFAC's decision, rejecting the assessee's request for condonation of delay and remand. It found that the assessee had knowledge of the assessment and penalty orders and was regular in filing returns for subsequent years, disproving claims of unawareness and lack of staff for the entire delay period.

The ITAT upheld the NFAC's decision, finding that the assessee had knowledge of the assessment and penalty orders due to subsequent return filings and participation in other proceedings. The tribunal rejected the reasons for delay, including the spouse's arrest, as insufficient to cover the entire delay period, and the displacement of staff was contradicted by the assessee's participation in other proceedings.

The tribunal needs to determine whether the stamp duty paid for the renewal of the mining lease is revenue or capital expenditure. The assessee argues it's revenue as it's for continuing an existing business, while the revenue contends it's capital for acquiring a right to extract minerals, which is a capital asset.

The ITAT upheld the NFAC's decision, rejecting the assessee's request for condonation of delay. The tribunal found that the assessee had knowledge of the assessment and penalty orders and failed to provide sufficient cause for the entire period of delay, especially considering her active participation in subsequent assessment proceedings.

The ITAT upheld the NFAC's decision, rejecting the assessee's request for condonation of delay. The tribunal found that the assessee had knowledge of the assessment and penalty orders and failed to provide sufficient cause for the entire period of delay, especially considering her active participation in subsequent assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal upheld the NFAC's decision, finding that the assessee had knowledge of the assessment and penalty orders and was regular in filing returns for subsequent years. The reasons provided for the delay, including the spouse's arrest and displacement of staff, were deemed insufficient to cover the entire period of delay, especially given the assessee's participation in other proceedings.

The Tribunal upheld the NFAC's decision, finding that the assessee had knowledge of the assessment and penalty orders and was regular in filing returns for subsequent years. The reasons provided for the delay, including the spouse's arrest and displacement of staff, were deemed insufficient to cover the entire period of delay, especially given the assessee's participation in other proceedings.

The ITAT upheld the NFAC's decision, finding that the assessee had knowledge of the assessment and penalty orders due to subsequent tax filings and participation in other proceedings. The tribunal rejected the reasons for delay, including the spouse's arrest, as insufficient to cover the entire period of delay, and the claim of displaced staff was contradicted by the assessee's participation in other tax matters.

The Tribunal upheld the NFAC's decision, finding that the assessee had knowledge of the assessment and penalty orders and failed to provide sufficient cause for the extensive delay. The reasons provided, such as the spouse's arrest and displacement of staff, did not cover the entire delay period, and the assessee had participated in subsequent assessment proceedings.

The ITAT upheld the NFAC's decision, rejecting the assessee's request for condonation of delay. The tribunal found that the assessee had knowledge of the assessment and penalty orders and failed to provide sufficient cause for the entire period of delay, especially considering her active participation in subsequent assessment proceedings.

The Tribunal upheld the NFAC's decision, finding that the assessee had knowledge of the assessment and penalty orders and was regular in filing returns for subsequent years. The reasons provided for the delay, including the spouse's arrest and displacement of staff, were deemed insufficient to cover the entire period of delay, especially given the assessee's participation in other proceedings.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal, as the Revenue had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The ITAT dismissed the general ground. For the specific disallowances, the tribunal held that the assessee had convincingly established that its business had commenced in AY 2008-09, as evidenced by the Certificate of Commencement and the allowance of Section 35D deduction in that year. Therefore, the disallowances based on non-commencement of business were incorrect.

The ITAT found that the CIT(A) did not adequately consider the evidence and submissions provided by the assessee regarding the source of cash deposits, including agricultural income. Therefore, the ITAT remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, citing the principle that the situs of the assessing officer determines the appellate forum's jurisdiction. It granted leave to the assessee to file the appeal before the appropriate ITAT bench that has jurisdiction over the Mumbai Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the case back to the CIT(A) to reconsider the condonation of delay application and adjudicate the appeal afresh. It emphasized providing adequate opportunity to the assessee and adopting a pragmatic approach.