ITAT Rajkot Judgments — April 2026

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing one appeal, noting the bonafide reasons. For the substantive issue, the Tribunal observed that the assessees were not given adequate opportunities to present their case before the CIT(Exemption). Therefore, the orders of the CIT(Exemption) were set aside and the matters were remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication, providing one more opportunity to the assessees.

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 some appeals, observing sufficient cause. While acknowledging the non-compliance by the assessees, the Tribunal granted them one more opportunity to present their cases before the CIT(Exemption) due to the Ld. DR not objecting to the requests. A cost of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed on one assessee.

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 condoned the delay in filing appeals, noting that the reasons for delay were bona fide and beyond the assessees' control. The Tribunal found that opportunities for proper adjudication were denied and therefore set aside the orders of the CIT(Exemption) and remanded the issues back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication, while imposing costs on the assessees.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. Observing that the assessees were not granted sufficient opportunities to present their cases before the CIT(Exemption) and that the Ld. DR did not object to granting further opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Exemption).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing one of the appeals. For all the appeals, the Tribunal noted that the assessees had not been afforded sufficient opportunity to present their case before the CIT(Exemption). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Exemption) and remanded the issues back to the CIT(Exemption) for proper adjudication, while imposing a cost on one assessee for non-compliance.

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

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, 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 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 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.

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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition. The Tribunal noted that the assessee is engaged in a cash-oriented business where payments are made to farmers in cash. The Tribunal observed that the cash deposited was out of available cash balance with the assessee, and the assessee maintained a similar pattern of cash deposit in previous and subsequent years. The Tribunal found no evidence that the cash deposited was out of unaccounted cash.

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 held that the cash withdrawals were explained by the business activity of purchasing milk from members and that the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition under section 69A was correct. Regarding the deduction under section 80P, the Tribunal held that since the assessee did not file its return of income within the due date specified under section 139(1), it was not eligible for the deduction.

The tribunal held that the cash withdrawals were sufficiently explained by documentary evidence submitted by the assessee, including bank statements, balance sheets, and payment registers, and thus the addition under Section 69A was deleted. Regarding the Section 80P deduction, the tribunal held that it is not allowable if the return of income is not filed within the due date specified under Section 139(1), irrespective of being filed later in response to a notice.

The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by previous decisions in the assessee's own case. The compensation received was for permitting Wockhardt Hospitals Ltd. to run the hospital activities from the trust's properties. The Tribunal found that the trust's ownership and control over the property remained, and the funds were applied for the trust's charitable objects, specifically medical relief. Therefore, the income should not be treated as business income.

The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was contradictory as it was framed under Section 143(3) but the AO had rejected the books of accounts, indicating a proceeding under Section 144. Since no proper adjudication was made by the AO, the matter was restored back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal held that the earlier order quashing the Section 263 assessments was effective, as there was no stay from the High Court. Consequently, the appeals filed by the revenue were deemed infructuous.

The Tribunal noted that the ITAT's previous order quashing the Section-263 orders was effective as there was no stay from the High Court. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice under section 148 was issued beyond the prescribed 'surviving time' as per the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Dhanraj Govindram Kella. Therefore, the notice was invalid and barred by limitation.

The Tribunal held that since its earlier order quashing the Section 263 order was still effective, the department's appeals were rendered infructuous. Consequently, all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the ITAT order from 30th June 2025, quashing the Section 263 orders, was effective as there was no stay from the High Court. Consequently, the appeals filed by the Revenue were rendered infructuous.

The Tribunal noted that although the department had appealed to the High Court, there was no stay of proceedings. Therefore, the ITAT concluded that the order dated June 30, 2025, was effective and that the current appeals filed by the Revenue had become infructuous.

The Tribunal noted that while the department had approached the High Court, there was no stay granted. Therefore, the ITAT's earlier order remained effective. Consequently, all appeals filed by the Revenue were deemed infructuous and dismissed.

The Tribunal held that since the order quashing the Section 263 orders was effective and no stay was granted by the High Court, the appeals filed by the Revenue had become infructuous. Consequently, all appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had passed ex-parte orders and the assessees requested an opportunity to submit additional documents and explanations. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal allowed the assessees' request and remitted the matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Exemption) had passed ex-parte orders and the assessees sought an opportunity to present their case with additional documents. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal accepted the request and remitted the matters back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Exemption) had passed ex-parte orders and the assessees requested an opportunity to submit additional documents and evidence. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal accepted the request and remitted the matters back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) passed ex-parte orders and the assessees wished to submit additional documents. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted an opportunity to the assessees to represent their case before the CIT(E) and remitted the matters back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees requested an opportunity to submit documents and explain their case. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal accepted this request. The matters were remitted back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessees to present their case and submit evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including contract notes, bank statements, and proof of shareholding period, to substantiate the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal noted that the AO had not refuted these evidences and had made additions based on suspicion rather than concrete proof. Therefore, the exemption under section 10(38) was allowed.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that the cash payments were made before the existence of the assessee firm (formed on 06.01.2018). The Tribunal noted the Revenue's argument that even if some payments were before the firm's existence, a part of the addition might still be valid.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had passed ex-parte orders. Since the assessees requested an opportunity to submit additional documents and explanations, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, allowed their request and remitted the matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had passed ex-parte orders. The assessees' representatives requested an opportunity to submit additional documents and explain their case before the CIT(E). The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, accepted this request and remitted the matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessees to present their case and submit necessary evidence.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) passed ex-parte orders due to non-compliance by the assessees. However, the assessees requested an opportunity to present their case and submit additional documents. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted this opportunity and remitted the matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.