ITAT Panaji Judgments — May 2026

The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) had grounds to dismiss the appeal due to non-compliance, the assessee's reasons for non-compliance might be beyond their control. Therefore, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) had grounds to dismiss the appeal due to non-compliance, the assessee's reasons for non-compliance might be beyond their control. Therefore, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee and pass a speaking order.

The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) had grounds to dismiss the appeal due to non-compliance, the assessee's reasons for non-compliance might be beyond their control. Therefore, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that while the CIT(A) had grounds to dismiss the appeal due to non-compliance, the assessee's reasons for non-compliance might be beyond their control. Therefore, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal restored the issues on merits to the AO for denovo adjudication, directing the assessee to provide detailed bank entries and an affidavit. The penalty proceedings were also restored to the AO as consequential to the quantum additions.

The Tribunal restored the issues on merits to the AO for denovo adjudication, directing the assessee to provide detailed bank entries and an affidavit. The penalty proceedings were also restored to the AO as consequential to the quantum additions.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and restored the disputed issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee's grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal restored the disputed issues sustained by the CIT(A) back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication for AY 2010-11, citing violations of natural justice. For AY 2011-12, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance of mine development expenses and remanded the issue of cessation of liability back to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and restored the disputed issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee's grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and restored the disputed issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was to be provided an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal restored the disputed issues sustained by the CIT(A) back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication for AY 2010-11, citing violations of natural justice. For AY 2011-12, the Tribunal deleted the disallowance of mine development expenses and remanded the issue of cessation of liability back to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and restored the disputed issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was to be provided an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that a 'Souharda' cooperative society registered under state law is considered a 'cooperative society' under Section 2(19) of the Act, making it eligible for Section 80P deductions. The interest income from cooperative banks was allowed as a deduction.

The Tribunal held that a 'Souharda' cooperative society registered under state law is considered a 'cooperative society' under Section 2(19) of the Act, making it eligible for Section 80P deductions. The interest income from cooperative banks was allowed as a deduction.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was not a speaking order and lacked proper discussion of facts and submissions. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to reasonable cause and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication, providing an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the investment in land was made from partners' capital and customer advances. Therefore, the genuineness of these sources needs to be examined. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the revisionary order and the consequential assessment order were set aside by the Tribunal, the penalty levied based on them was not sustainable. However, a prior penalty of Rs. 51,380/- was sustained as the assessee had not contested it.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue back for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be given an adequate opportunity to present evidence and information.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back for fresh adjudication. It granted the assessee one more opportunity to present evidence, citing principles of natural justice and potential reasons for non-compliance.