ITAT Rajkot Judgments — April 2026

The Tribunal held that the approval for issuing the notice under Section 148 was granted by an authority not specified in Section 151 of the Act, as more than three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the sanction was invalid, rendering the notice and subsequent proceedings void ab initio.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to delete the addition. It found that the loose papers were found from a third party, were unsigned by the assessee, and the seller's statement was contradictory and untested, lacking independent corroborative evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to the validity of the reopening notice, finding it not tenable. However, the judgment does not explicitly state the decision on the addition of Rs. 32,51,000/-, indicating a potential for further proceedings or a lack of clear resolution on this point within the provided text.

The Tribunal held that while the rebate under Section 87A is head-neutral, it is rate-sensitive and not applicable to tax computed under special rate provisions, particularly capital gains. Therefore, the rebate is admissible only on the normal income portion.

The Tribunal held that the Rs. 6,00,000/- portion of the deposit, representing business turnover declared under Section 44AD, should not be taxed again. However, for the Rs. 9,50,000/- representing cash withdrawals re-deposited, a 8% addition was made as the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment and reopening of the assessment were bad in law. The addition of Rs. 79,65,900/- on account of short-term capital gain under Section 50C was also not justified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had disclosed the stock difference in the computation of total income, and the penalty was levied solely because it was not reflected in the book profit under Section 115JB. Relying on the Apex Court judgment in CIT vs. Reliance Petro Products (P) Ltd., the Tribunal deleted the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was correct and that the fresh assessment order passed pursuant to the Section 263 order became infructuous once the Section 263 order was quashed by the ITAT.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The assessee is to be given sufficient opportunities for hearing and to produce documents to prove the genuineness of the transaction.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing one of the appeals due to the death of a trustee. In most cases, the Tribunal found that the assessees had not been granted sufficient opportunities to present their case before the CIT(Exemption) or had made procedural errors. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Exemption).

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law because the reasons recorded were factually incorrect, vague, and lacked application of mind. The information used for reopening did not directly pertain to the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing one of the appeals due to the death of a trustee. In most cases, the Tribunal found that the assessees had not been granted sufficient opportunities to present their case before the CIT(Exemption) or had made procedural errors. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Exemption).

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 1444 days, finding a 'sufficient cause' for the late filing due to the assessee's lack of expertise in taxation laws and reliance on professional guidance. The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice require granting an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal noted that the AO had accepted the return after verifying submissions and explaining cash transactions. While acknowledging the issue of delayed filing of return, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's proposal to file a condonation of delay application before the CIT under Section 119(2)(b). The Revenue representative agreed to this proposal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing one of the appeals due to the death of a trustee. In most cases, the Tribunal found that the assessees had not been granted sufficient opportunities to present their case before the CIT(Exemption) or had made procedural errors. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Exemption).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing one of the appeals due to the death of a trustee. In most cases, the Tribunal found that the assessees had not been granted sufficient opportunities to present their case before the CIT(Exemption) or had made procedural errors. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Exemption).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing one of the appeals due to the death of a trustee. In most cases, the Tribunal found that the assessees had not been granted sufficient opportunities to present their case before the CIT(Exemption) or had made procedural errors. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Exemption).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing one of the appeals due to the death of a trustee. In most cases, the Tribunal found that the assessees had not been granted sufficient opportunities to present their case before the CIT(Exemption) or had made procedural errors. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Exemption).

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide cogent evidence to justify the interest income, interest expenses, and bad debts claimed. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication with directions for the assessee to file a reconciliation statement.

The Tribunal held that the AO had made detailed inquiries and applied his mind before accepting the excess stock as business income. The PCIT's finding that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue was not correct.

The Tribunal held that the AO made due inquiries and could not find incriminating material, hence the assessment order was not erroneous. The PCIT's revision order was quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee submitted significant additional evidence for the first time before it. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of the additional evidence.

The Tribunal held that a mere disallowance of a claim during assessment proceedings does not automatically amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied solely on the basis of a claim that is not sustainable in assessment.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee submitted significant additional evidence for the first time before it. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of the additional evidence.

The Tribunal held that there is no statutory bar in Section 87A or Section 111A preventing the allowance of rebate against tax computed on short-term capital gains. The denial by CPC was based on system logic, not statutory mandate.

The Tribunal held that the presumption under Section 292C regarding documents found during a survey can only be drawn if a clear nexus between the documents and the assessee is established. In this case, the AO failed to establish such a nexus, and the basic details relied upon were not present in the seized material.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to restrict the addition to 8% of the total credits, considering it as a reasonable estimate of income. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's appeal for AY 2010-11 was partly allowed.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal primarily on the grounds of limitation due to a significant delay in filing. Even on merits, the assessee failed to provide supporting evidence to controvert the lower authorities' findings.

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 69C for unexplained expenditure was not sustainable as the purchase itself was accepted. For the addition under Section 69A, it directed the Assessing Officer to estimate a Gross Profit of 2.5% due to lack of details.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to restrict the addition to 8% of the total credits, considering it as a reasonable estimate of income. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's appeal for AY 2010-11 was partly allowed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 8% of the total credits, considering it a reasonable estimate of income from the unexplained credits. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's appeal for AY 2010-11 was partly allowed.

The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte and non-speaking order without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee to be heard. This was a violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) order was ex-parte and violated the principle of natural justice by not providing the assessee with a sufficient opportunity to be heard and by not discussing the case on merits. Therefore, the order was set aside.

Since the assessee did not wish to press the appeal and the Departmental Representative raised no objection, the tribunal treated the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to mitigating circumstances. Finding the CIT(A)'s order to be ex-parte and non-speaking, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication in the interest of justice and principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating the principles of natural justice as the assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order without commenting on the merits.

The tribunal noted that the assessee did not wish to press the appeal and the revenue representative did not object. Therefore, the appeal was treated as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was a violation of the principle of natural justice as the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal decided not to comment on the merits of the case and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that CBDT circulars are binding on the Revenue and that the appeal filed by the Revenue was contrary to the new monetary limits set by Circular No. 09/2024 as the tax effect was less than Rs. 60,00,000/-. The Revenue was given liberty to seek recall if the tax effect was actually higher or if the appeal was otherwise maintainable.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking, and that the assessee was not given a sufficient opportunity to plead their case. Consequently, the Tribunal found a violation of the principle of natural justice.

The tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons in the affidavit to be sufficient cause. On merits, the tribunal noted the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and non-speaking, violating principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the assessing officer for de novo adjudication.

The tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking. Observing a violation of the principle of natural justice because the assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard and present their case, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by a co-ordinate bench decision in Rajeshkumar Shantilal Patel vs. ITO. This decision stated that if similar capital gains were accepted for co-owners, the assessee should receive similar relief. Therefore, the addition made by the AO should be deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition under Section 69A, finding no infirmity in the deletion. However, it dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding the Section 80P deduction, agreeing that it was not allowable due to the return not being filed within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1).

The Tribunal held that the issue is squarely covered by its own previous decisions in favor of the assessee. The compensation received should be treated as income for charitable purposes and the benefit of Section 11 should be allowed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition under Section 69A, finding no infirmity in the deletion. However, it dismissed the assessee's appeal regarding the Section 80P deduction, agreeing that it was not allowable due to the return not being filed within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1).

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to explain the cash deposits as being out of available cash balance. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's books were audited and the Assessing Officer had not pointed out any defects.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the advocate's mistake and the need for a liberal approach in such matters. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated on merits, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the rejection order was bad in law and passed without sufficient opportunity of being heard. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not sufficiently proved the source and creditworthiness of funds received as loans and gifts. However, considering the additional evidence filed and the circumstances, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee.