ITAT Patna Judgments — May 2026

The Tribunal observed the conduct of the assessee's AR during the virtual hearing, noting a lack of adherence to the Standard Operating Procedures. Based on this conduct and without delving into the merits of the case, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal observed the conduct of the assessee's AR during the virtual hearing, noting a lack of adherence to the Standard Operating Procedures. Based on this conduct and without delving into the merits of the case, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted proper opportunities and that principles of natural justice might have been violated. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities passed ex-parte orders without providing proper opportunity to the assessee and without verifying service of notices, violating principles of natural justice. The assessment also erroneously considered the entire sale proceeds as STCG without accounting for acquisition and improvement costs.

The ITAT held that the addition of Rs. 2,13,86,870/- made in the computation sheet was outside the scope of the limited scrutiny for which the case was selected. Therefore, this addition was not tenable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a reasonable cause for the inordinate delay in furnishing the tax audit report beyond the extended due date. Consequently, the penalty imposed under Section 271B was upheld.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive proper notices and that the issue of TDS credit was not adequately addressed. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal observed the conduct of the assessee's AR during the virtual hearing, noting a lack of adherence to the Standard Operating Procedures. Based on this conduct and without delving into the merits of the case, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal observed the conduct of the assessee's AR during the virtual hearing, noting a lack of adherence to the Standard Operating Procedures. Based on this conduct and without delving into the merits of the case, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in treating the entire share application money and premium as unexplained cash credit. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after considering the evidence regarding the share allotment against land transfer.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to re-examine the issues on merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond the statutory limitation period and were therefore bad in law. The Tribunal quashed the reassessment proceedings and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to re-examine the issues on merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to re-examine the issues on merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to re-examine the issues on merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted a discrepancy in the flat number mentioned in the money receipt (B-404) versus the sale agreement and deed (B-402). It directed the AO to verify the ownership of Flat B-404 physically and through registered documents.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence and remanded it to the AO for a report, but the AO did not submit the report within the given short timeframe. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 143(2) was invalid as it did not comply with CBDT instructions regarding the type of scrutiny. Additionally, the AO made an ad-hoc addition without rejecting the books of account or pointing out defects in the evidence produced.

The ITAT noted that legal grounds raised by the assessee were not adjudicated by the CIT(A). Considering the interest of justice, the ITAT remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on legal grounds and merits.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that transactions with Srijan were recorded in audited books, depreciation was for business use, and contractual receipts showed timing differences, not suppressed income. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to reject the assessee's books of accounts before estimating income. It also noted that certain stock was legitimately outside the premises for certification and approval. Therefore, the addition based on the stock difference was deemed excessive.

The Tribunal deleted the addition on account of bogus sales to M/s Rajendra Ispat, finding it to be a double addition. However, the ground challenging the validity of the reassessment order was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to substantiate that the cases fell under any specific exception to the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to comply with notices at various stages. To ensure justice and fair play, the issue was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to substantiate that the cases fell under any specific exception to the monetary limit rule in the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to substantiate that the cases fell under any specific exception to the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to substantiate that the cases fell under any specific exception to the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to substantiate that the cases fell under any specific exception to the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to substantiate that the cases fell under any specific exception to the monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeals were not maintainable.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to file a condonation petition for the delay, which the CIT(A) was to consider before deciding the appeal on its merits.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without hearing the assessee. For the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration on merit. This was done to provide the assessee an opportunity to present its case, as the previous order was passed without adjudicating the merits.