ITAT Panaji Judgments — June 2026

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus under Section 68 for loans from relatives by providing sufficient details of identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness. For self-savings, the Tribunal accepted a portion based on the assessee's age and employment history.

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be not a speaking order, lacking specific reasoning for the disallowance of the short-term capital loss on shares. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) with proper evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding a reasonable cause for the delay. The issues raised were remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and granted the assessee one more opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had been granted approval under Section 80G for subsequent assessment years with the same objects. It also referred to coordinate bench decisions holding that teaching Vedas and Sanskrit literature is a charitable activity.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It restored all issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to furnish necessary details.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee, which was not presented before the lower authorities. The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that filing of Form No. 10B is a procedural requirement and the benefit of exemption under section 11 should not be denied for a delay in furnishing the audit report. Following established precedents, the assessee is entitled to the exemption.

The Tribunal held that Section 87A of the Income Tax Act does not exclude short-term capital gains from the calculation of total income for rebate purposes. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for the rebate on the entire tax liability.

The Tribunal allowed deletion of additions related to discrepancies in receipt registers vs. OPD ledgers, capital account figures, and building construction expenses. The issue of unexplained gifts was restored to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 495 days, finding reasonable cause for the assessee's inability to file the appeal on time. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, in the interest of justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The issue was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present evidence.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the case on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) citing reasonable cause. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) after finding sufficient cause. Since the CIT(A) had not decided the issues on merits, the case was remitted back for denovo adjudication.

The Tribunal, considering the COVID-19 pandemic and the assessee's prima facie case, decided to grant one more opportunity. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored all issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that while meticulous details like those for trading businesses are not expected for agricultural income, some disallowance is warranted for lack of complete documentation. The Tribunal reduced the disallowance to Rs. 1.00 lakh.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's written submissions explaining the cash deposit as a gold loan and citing personal difficulties, decided to give the assessee another opportunity. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the tax demand and applicable interest had been fully paid. The departmental representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the amount received under the BSNL VRS, 2019, is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, reversing the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal held that the amount received under the BSNL VRS, 2019, is in the nature of retrenchment compensation and is therefore exempt from tax under Section 10(10B) of the Act. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

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 Act. The orders of the lower authority were set aside.

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 Act. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.

The tribunal granted the appellant's permission to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's request to restore the matter to the CIT(A) due to a lack of sufficient opportunity to be heard. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence submitted by the assessee and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The issue of the Rs. 20,94,736/- addition was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO. The AO was directed to pass a fresh assessment order after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) finding reasonable cause. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the assessee's submissions and evidence. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated an additional ground of appeal concerning the assessment order being passed against a deceased person. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the entire issues back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were invalid and void ab initio because the Assessing Officer failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This failure vitiated the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were invalid and void ab initio because the Assessing Officer failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This failure vitiated the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were invalid and void ab initio because the Assessing Officer failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This failure vitiated the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notices were invalid and void ab initio because the Assessing Officer failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This failure vitiated the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the AO failed to specify in the penalty notice whether the proceedings were for under-reporting or misreporting of income. Relying on a High Court decision, the Tribunal quashed the penalty notice.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned from cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) and allowed the assessee's appeal on this issue. However, for interest income from scheduled banks, the Tribunal found that the AO had not properly examined the facts and dismissed the appeal on this point.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income from cooperative banks. The issue of interest income from scheduled banks was restored to the AO for adjudication.

The Tribunal held that a 'Souharda' cooperative society registered under state law is considered a 'cooperative society' under Section 2(19) of the Act. Consequently, the denial of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income from cooperative banks and the issue of interest from scheduled banks were restored to the Assessing Officer for adjudication.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not consider the assessee's submissions and confirmed the Assessing Officer's order with general observations. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income from cooperative banks. The issue of interest income from scheduled banks was restored to the AO for adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the full exemption for leave encashment as claimed in the return of income. This is based on the revised exemption limit of Rs. 25,00,000 as per CBDT Notification No. 31/2023.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and granted the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its charitable activities with evidence, directing the CIT to reconsider the application.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding sufficient cause based on Supreme Court precedents. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was remitted for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from investments/deposits with co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. This is because co-operative banks are essentially co-operative societies.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with one more opportunity for adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after affording a proper opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer did not issue a fresh notice under Section 148 for the disallowance of Section 80P deduction, which was a new issue not covered in the original notice, the reassessment proceedings were invalid. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment order.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the legal issues raised by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal restored all issues, including the legal ones, to the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication.