ITAT Raipur Judgments — May 2026

The Tribunal held that since the payee had offered the sum to tax, the assessee was not deemed to be an assessee in default. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was not justified.

The Tribunal found that the authorities below had not examined the case from the perspective of avoiding double taxation. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the AO invoked the wrong section (Section 69) as the issue was about cash deposits, not unexplained investments. The Department failed to dispute the source of income or prove any undisclosed source, making the addition arbitrary and bad in law.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and, finding it necessary to examine the merits of this new evidence, set aside the impugned order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that failure to provide the assessee with the 'reasons to believe' for reopening the assessment, despite specific requests, vitiates the reassessment proceedings. The AO lacked valid jurisdiction to proceed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee's belief that appeals were pending. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was obliged to decide appeals on merit and not dismiss them for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee's belief that appeals were pending. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was obliged to decide appeals on merit and not dismiss them for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and is obligated to decide the case on merits with detailed reasoning. The impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee's belief that appeals were pending. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was obliged to decide appeals on merit and not dismiss them for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee's belief that appeals were pending. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was obliged to decide appeals on merit and not dismiss them for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal held that the AO invoked the wrong charging section (Section 68) for the cash deposits, as the facts pointed towards unexplained investments or money. Since the charging section was incorrect, the assessment was deemed arbitrary and bad in law.

The Tribunal allowed appeals for assessment years 2012-13 to 2015-16 for statistical purposes, noting ambiguity in the assessee's statement regarding surrender of income. The appeals for assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20 concerning disallowance of late Provident Fund contributions were dismissed, following Supreme Court precedent.

The Tribunal allowed appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2015-16 for statistical purposes, remanding the issue of taxability of income determined by applying the NP rate. Appeals for AYs 2018-19 and 2019-20 concerning disallowance of late deposit of employee PF contributions were dismissed.

The Tribunal allowed appeals for assessment years 2012-13 to 2015-16 for statistical purposes, noting ambiguity in the assessee's statement regarding surrender of income. The appeals for assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20 concerning disallowance of late Provident Fund contributions were dismissed, following Supreme Court precedent.

The Tribunal allowed appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2015-16 for statistical purposes, noting ambiguity in the assessee's statement regarding the surrender of income. However, appeals concerning the disallowance of late Provident Fund contributions were dismissed, following the Supreme Court's ruling.

The Tribunal allowed appeals for assessment years 2012-13 to 2015-16 for statistical purposes, noting ambiguity in the assessee's statement regarding surrender of income. The appeals for assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20 concerning disallowance of late Provident Fund contributions were dismissed, following Supreme Court precedent.

The Tribunal allowed appeals for assessment years 2012-13 to 2015-16 for statistical purposes, noting ambiguity in the assessee's statement regarding surrender of income. The appeals for assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20 concerning disallowance of late Provident Fund contributions were dismissed, following Supreme Court precedent.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer were unfounded and arbitrary. The assessee had sufficiently explained the nature and source of the cash deposits, thus it could not be treated as unexplained money.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obliged to decide the appeal on merit and cannot dismiss it for non-prosecution. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal reduced the GP rate to 3.13% based on a comparable case of a similar business. It also deleted the ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 1 lakh, stating that no further disallowance should be made after rejecting books and estimating GP.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and remanded the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(Appeals) was directed to obtain a remand report from the AO and pass a speaking order.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and remanded the matter back to the CIT(Appeals) for adjudication de novo. The CIT(Appeals) was directed to obtain a remand report from the AO and pass a speaking order considering the additional evidence.

The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no infirmity in the order dismissing the appeal. The tribunal agreed that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the extraordinary delay in filing the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and must decide the case on its merits with detailed reasoning. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(Appeals) erred in invoking Section 69 as there was no evidence of unexplained investment outside the books of account. The addition was made based on an incorrect charging section.

The Tribunal, following its previous decisions, set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(Appeals) and remanded the matter back for denovo adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to represent the case on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay due to the assessee's medical condition. It held that the Assessing Officer wrongly invoked Section 68 for cash deposits, which should have been considered under Section 69A, and thus the additions were unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's retraction was an afterthought and lacked evidence. The addition was based on physical verification and corroborated by the assessee's initial admission, which was not made under duress.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish a direct nexus between the borrowed funds and the interest income earned, as the funds were also utilized for other purposes like purchasing shares and plots. Therefore, the deduction claimed under Section 57(iii) was not allowable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) was justified in deleting the addition on depreciation, relying on its own previous decisions. The cross-objection by the assessee was dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made by the revenue authorities. It found that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness and creditworthiness of the lenders for the unsecured loans, and also failed to provide sufficient evidence for exclusive business use of the car and the allowability of advance freight expenses.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was void ab initio due to its ambiguity, as it failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings, including the penalty order, were rendered null and void.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of JCB rent as TDS was not deducted, and the assessee failed to provide evidence of the payee accounting for the income. The Tribunal also confirmed the disallowance of proportionate interest on advances to relatives, citing lack of commercial expediency and failure to prove the use of non-interest-bearing funds.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had not adjudicated the primary ground regarding the nature of the asset. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the failure to provide the 'reasons to believe' to the assessee, despite their request, vitiated the reassessment proceedings. This violated the principles of natural justice and the mandate of the Supreme Court.

The tribunal held that the delay was inordinate and caused by the assessee's negligence and casual approach. Condoning such a delay would be unfair to the revenue and would prejudice their rights.

The tribunal held that the delay was inordinate, caused by negligence, and lacked sufficient bonafide reasons. Condonation of such delay is not a matter of right and cannot be granted merely as an act of generosity.

The Tribunal condoned the technical delay in filing the application for final approval under Section 80G(5) of the Act. The order of the CIT(Exemption) was set aside, and the matter was restored to his file for reconsideration on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution and is obliged to decide the case on merit with detailed reasoning. The impugned order of CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) cannot dismiss an appeal in limine solely on the ground of delay without considering the merits or providing an opportunity to the assessee. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing no malafide conduct by the assessee. It held that ex-parte orders passed without a proper adjudication on merits should be set aside.

The Tribunal held that for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab), government grants must exceed 50% of total receipts in the relevant previous year, as per Rule 2BBB. Since the university failed to meet this condition, the exemption was rightly denied.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing no malafide conduct by the assessee. It held that ex-parte orders passed without a proper adjudication on merits should be set aside.

The Tribunal held that for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab), government grants must exceed 50% of total receipts in the relevant previous year, as per Rule 2BBB. Since the university failed to meet this condition, the exemption was rightly denied.

The ITAT held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution, citing a Bombay High Court judgment. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to adjudicate appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution, citing a Bombay High Court judgment. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside for de-novo adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing no malafide conduct by the assessee. It held that ex-parte orders passed without a proper adjudication on merits should be set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and, following precedent, set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals). The matters were remanded back for de novo adjudication, providing the assessee a final opportunity to comply.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and, following precedent, set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(Appeals). The matters were remanded back for de novo adjudication, providing the assessee a final opportunity to comply.

The ITAT condoned the one-day delay and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication, with a direction to provide the assessee with a hearing opportunity.