Loading ITAT cases…
1,970 tribunal orders from the Ranchi bench.
Counted from the judgments of this bench on BharatTax. The figure is how many of them cite each decision.
A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.
When two equally plausible interpretations of a taxing provision are possible, or when conflicting views exist from non-jurisdictional High Courts, the interpretation that favors the assessee must be adopted.
An assessment under section 153A is without jurisdiction if there is an absence of incriminating material for an unabated assessment year.
A notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether penalty proceedings are for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Such lack of specificity vitiates the penalty proceedings.
An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.
A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify the exact charge by not striking off the irrelevant limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income). Such an omnibus or vague notice renders the penalty proceedings bad in law, and any penalty imposed on its basis is liable to be quashed.
A penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) is not sustainable if the notice issued under Section 274 fails to specifically mention whether the charge relates to concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer must specify the exact charge for the penalty to be valid.
A business liability that has definitely arisen in an accounting year is deductible even if it needs to be quantified and discharged later, as long as its incurring is certain and can be reasonably estimated.
Late fees under section 234E are not applicable for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the amendment to section 200A inserting clause (c) was effective from that date.
The fee under Section 234E for late filing of TDS/TCS statements cannot be levied retrospectively by processing an intimation under Section 200A for defaults occurring before the amendment allowing such processing.
Taxing statutes are presumed to operate prospectively unless a clear contrary intention for retrospective application is evident. The law applicable for determining tax liability is that which stands on the first day of the assessment year, following the principle that law looks forward, not backward (lex prospicit non respicit).
Appellate authorities can consider new claims and additional grounds if the relevant facts are already on record. The purpose of assessment is to correctly determine tax liability, allowing both parties to raise issues.
A fee under Section 234E cannot be levied or adjusted in an intimation under Section 200A for TDS statements pertaining to periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling amendment to Section 200A(1)(c) came into effect only from that date.
Fees under Section 234E for default in furnishing TDS statements cannot be levied during the processing of such statements under Section 200A for periods prior to the amendment of Section 200A by Finance Act, 2015.
Sponsorship expenditure, when akin to advertisement expenses, constitutes revenue expenditure and is allowable as a business deduction under the Income-tax Act.
Where the exact quantification of a liability is to be determined in the future, but the liability itself is certain, it can be accounted for. This principle is applied when a wage agreement is being finalized.
“Concealment of particulars of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” are two distinct offences under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. A penalty cannot be levied under one limb if the show cause notice or basis for penalty specifies the other, as this constitutes a complete variance in the reasons for assuming jurisdiction.
When levying a penalty under Section 271(1)(c), the Assessing Officer must clearly specify whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. An ambiguous notice or order using "and/or" for these limbs, or a standard proforma without striking irrelevant clauses, indicates non-application of mind and renders the penalty unsustainable.
The assessment order must clearly specify the reason for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) and explicitly state whether it is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Failure to identify the specific limb under which penalty is initiated renders the penalty unsustainable.
Approval under Section 153D for search assessments is invalid if granted mechanically, hastily, or without due application of mind, such as on the same day as the proposal or in a bunched manner. Such an invalid approval renders the consequential assessment order under Section 153A void ab initio.
Most recent orders on record, from 2026.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish that the impugned contribution represented a genuine donation eligible for deduction under Section 80GGC. The Tribunal noted that the investigation material, bank trail analysis, and the established modus operandi of the recipient political party constituted a complete chain of circumstances demonstrating that the donation was an accommodation entry. The party's failure to provide audited financial statements and confirm its return filing, coupled with its alleged involvement in facilitating bogus claims, raised serious doubts about the genuineness of the donation. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Durga Prasad More and Sumati Dayal v. CIT, stating that taxing authorities are not required to ignore surrounding circumstances and can look beyond apparent transactions. The Tribunal also followed the consistent view of co-ordinate benches in identical matters. Consequently, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the Ld. CIT(A)'s order affirming the disallowance made by the AO. The grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed. The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 5,73,983/- as additional business income was acceptable. The AO considered the total turnover as Rs. 1,00,39,426/- and computed net profit at 12.5%, which was accepted by both parties as turnover. The assessee's plea to offer only 8% on the difference was rejected as he had already declared 12.5% income under Section 44AD on a portion of the turnover. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not declare closing cash in hand for the previous year and provided no documentary evidence for the opening cash balance. Regarding the Rs. 14,05,000/- cash deposit, the Tribunal found that these deposits were out of the assessee's income and were utilized for payments like EMIs and electricity bills. Therefore, telescoping benefit should be given. The issue was remitted to the AO to determine the availability of funds after considering the cash flow statement, with the direction that the assessee would not get any benefit of the opening cash balance. If the AO finds any shortfall, the addition would be restricted to that extent. The assessee was directed to provide a correct cash flow statement.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A), dismissing the revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had rightly held that the addition could not be made in the hands of the assessee once the identity of the party, JS Traders, with its proprietor Shri Shafiqur Rehman (the assessee's brother), was established. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had considered the evidence, including the GST registration and the brother's Income Tax Return, which linked the account and business to Shafiqur Rahman. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the bank account did not belong to the assessee but to JS Traders, the proprietorship of his brother. Therefore, no addition could be made in the hands of the assessee. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and upheld it.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the revenue. The Tribunal noted that while the assessee failed to appear before the AO, the AO completed the assessment under Section 144 without conducting an independent inquiry to establish the assessee's identity in relation to the seized document. The document JMD-06 was seized from a third party's premises and named Dr. Om Prakash Jha and Sudha Thakur. The CIT(A) had correctly observed that the document did not belong to the assessee and that the AO had not brought any material on record to prove otherwise, concluding it was a case of mistaken identity. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and held that no addition could be made in the hands of the assessee based on the evidence presented. The addition of ₹1,86,43,431/- was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated as the AO had tangible information from the Directorate of Investigation regarding huge deposits in the assessee's bank account, which was sufficient to support reassessment proceedings under Section 147. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that there was no tangible material. Regarding the addition under Section 69A, the Tribunal found that while the assessee was engaged in share trading, all transactions were made through banking channels and the assessee had produced entire transaction details with the broker and bank statements. The AO had not brought out any discrepancy in these share transactions or their source. Therefore, the addition of ₹2,83,44,250/- under Section 69A as unexplained money could not be sustained and was deleted. The Tribunal did not specifically address Ground 3 (escapement of income) or Ground 4 (natural justice) as separate issues but implicitly found no escapement by deleting the addition. The appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had raised serious jurisdictional aspects in the grounds of appeal but was absent during the hearing. The Tribunal heard the Senior Departmental Representative (Sr. DR) and considered the grounds of appeal and the record. The Sr. DR reiterated that the AO and CIT(A) had considered the assessee's objections and provided ample opportunity. The CIT(A), after considering the submissions and objections, and adhering to the principles of natural justice, directed the AO to make a fresh assessment. The assessee had also filed a rectification application under Section 154, arguing that the jurisdictional ground was not disposed of, which was rejected by the CIT(A). The Tribunal, after considering the Sr. DR's submissions and the record, held that it was appropriate to remand the case back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to consider all documents, evidence, and submissions to be made by the assessee for a true assessment of income. The assessee was directed to appear before the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessment order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated as the AO had tangible information from the Directorate of Investigation regarding huge deposits in the assessee's bank account, which was sufficient to support reassessment proceedings under Section 147. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's contention that there was no tangible material. Regarding the addition under Section 69A, the Tribunal found that while the assessee was engaged in share trading, all transactions were made through banking channels and the assessee had produced entire transaction details with the broker and bank statements. The AO had not brought out any discrepancy in these share transactions or their source. Therefore, the addition of ₹2,83,44,250/- under Section 69A as unexplained money could not be sustained and was deleted. The Tribunal did not specifically address Ground 3 (escapement of income) or Ground 4 (natural justice) as separate issues but implicitly found no escapement by deleting the addition. The appeals were partly allowed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly considered the revised turnover of ₹1.69 crore and applied the net profit rate of 18.49%, which was declared by the assessee himself on his declared turnover. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order regarding the profit addition. For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition of ₹14,08,333 on account of unexplained investment in unaccounted purchases, stating that once profit was estimated after rejecting books, further addition would amount to double taxation. Similarly, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of an addition of ₹75,00,000 for investment in a new clinic, land, and flat, following the reasoning for AY 2017-18. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's cross-appeal for AY 2018-19.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A). The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that once profit is estimated, it inherently takes into account possible leakages, deficiencies, and unverifiable expenses recorded in the books of account. Therefore, making an additional disallowance for the same set of transactions would amount to double taxation. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and saw no reason to interfere. The addition of ₹2,49,40,034/- made under Section 69C was deleted by the CIT(A) on the grounds of double taxation, which the Tribunal found to be correct. The Tribunal did not decide on the issue of whether Section 69C and Section 145(3) operate independently, as the primary reasoning for upholding the CIT(A)'s order was the principle of avoiding double taxation.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly considered the revised turnover of ₹1.69 crore and applied the net profit rate of 18.49%, which was declared by the assessee himself on his declared turnover. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order regarding the profit addition. For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition of ₹14,08,333 on account of unexplained investment in unaccounted purchases, stating that once profit was estimated after rejecting books, further addition would amount to double taxation. Similarly, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of an addition of ₹75,00,000 for investment in a new clinic, land, and flat, following the reasoning for AY 2017-18. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's cross-appeal for AY 2018-19.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly considered the revised turnover of ₹1.69 crore and applied the net profit rate of 18.49%, which was declared by the assessee himself on his declared turnover. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order regarding the profit addition. For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition of ₹14,08,333 on account of unexplained investment in unaccounted purchases, stating that once profit was estimated after rejecting books, further addition would amount to double taxation. Similarly, the Tribunal upheld the deletion of an addition of ₹75,00,000 for investment in a new clinic, land, and flat, following the reasoning for AY 2017-18. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's cross-appeal for AY 2018-19.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to immunity under Section 270AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. While the tax and interest were paid and no appeal was filed against the assessment order, the assessee had not filed a specific application to the Assessing Officer for immunity from penalty as required by Section 270AA. The Tribunal noted that the conditions for immunity under Section 270AA were not fulfilled. Regarding the penalty under Section 270A, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not adequately considered the facts and circumstances presented by the assessee, including the reasons for not filing the return under Section 139(1) and the immediate filing of the return in response to the notice under Section 148. The Tribunal considered the assessee's explanation as a bonafide case where reasonable cause prevented timely filing. Therefore, the Tribunal held that it was not a fit case for imposing penalty under Section 270A(2) and directed the deletion of the penalty. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had examined the issue in detail and was satisfied before deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not admitted any additional evidence beyond the transactions made through the bank. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. The ratio decidendi is that if the appellate authority is satisfied with the explanation and documentation provided by the assessee, and no additional evidence beyond banking transactions was admitted, the appellate order should be upheld, even if the Assessing Officer had made additions due to lack of submission from the assessee. The appeal of the revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer failed to produce any evidence or material to conclude that the assessee had received the alleged bogus loan of ₹4,00,031 from Shri Mukesh Banka. In the absence of any such material on record brought forth by the AO, no addition could be made under Section 69A of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition and upheld that decision. The operative direction was to dismiss the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was void ab initio. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Satish Kumar Vs. Pr.CIT and a coordinate bench decision in Mantosh Kumar Vs. ACIT, which held that a clear seven days' notice must be provided to the assessee for compliance under Section 148A(b). In this case, the notice dated 30/03/2024 required the assessee to respond by 05/04/2024, providing only five clear days, which violates the mandate of the Act. Therefore, the notice under Section 148A(b) was quashed, making all subsequent proceedings, including the assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B, unsustainable and nullities. The appeal was allowed on this ground, and the issue of profit estimation was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT, Ranchi, had jurisdiction to pass the order under section 263. The Tribunal reasoned that despite the section 127 order transferring jurisdiction to Kolkata, the PAN was never migrated, and the case records and statutory proceedings continued to remain with the Ranchi authorities. The Tribunal emphasized that jurisdiction should be viewed in practical terms of control over assessment records, citing CIT Vs. Sahara Indian Financial Corporation Ltd. The Tribunal found that the assessee's jurisdictional objection was technical and lacked substance, as the de facto and de jure jurisdiction continued with Ranchi. Furthermore, the Tribunal agreed with the revenue that the AO's order dated 15.05.2017 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue because it disregarded the directions given by the PCIT, Ranchi, under section 264 to examine the genuineness of share capital/premium. The Tribunal concluded that the revision order was not only within jurisdiction but also mandated by law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹1,11,21,634/- representing interest paid to the creditor companies was unsustainable under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal reasoned that interest paid is an expenditure and not a 'sum credited' representing an unexplained receipt, and therefore, cannot be brought within the purview of Section 68. The Tribunal noted that the AO had allowed this interest as a business expenditure, creating an inconsistency. Regarding the principal amount of unsecured loans, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing details of the creditors, including their identity, addresses, PANs, and confirmations. The Tribunal also noted that the creditor companies were RBI-registered NBFCs, regularly assessed to tax, and had substantial returned income. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. and CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd., which state that once the assessee establishes the identity, genuineness, and capacity of the creditors, the onus shifts to the Revenue to prove otherwise. The Tribunal observed that the Revenue had not brought on record any independent material to disprove the genuineness of the loans beyond the AO's belief that the companies were shell entities. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided. The operative direction was to delete the addition related to interest.
The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds raised by the assessee, considering them purely legal and capable of being raised at any stage, citing the decision in NTPC Vs CIT. The Tribunal noted that the notice under Section 148A(b) was issued on March 22, 2022, requiring a response by March 29, 2022, which provided only seven days, falling short of the mandatory minimum seven clear days stipulated by law. Relying on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Satish Kumar Vs PCIT and a coordinate bench's decision in Agarwal Metcom Private Limited vs ACIT/DCIT, the Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148A(b) was invalid. Consequently, the reassessment order passed under Section 147 and the subsequent revisionary proceedings under Section 263 were also deemed void. The Tribunal quashed the notice under Section 148A(b) and all subsequent proceedings. The appeal was allowed on this ground, and other issues were not adjudicated.
The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and found it appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of the learned CIT(Exemption). The Tribunal directed the assessee to produce all the required documents before the CIT(Exemption) so that the application for registration can be decided on merits. The reasoning for this decision was based on the submission by the appellant's counsel that one more opportunity should be provided due to the illness of the person responsible for submitting the details. The learned CIT-Departmental Representative did not raise any serious objection. Therefore, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with the operative direction being to re-examine the application after the assessee provides the necessary details. No specific issue was left undecided, as the Tribunal chose to remand the matter for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹10,79,786 on account of 193.51 grams of gold jewellery was unsustainable. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was part of a joint family, and jewellery was kept together. The AO failed to identify and correlate each item of jewellery with individual family members. The Tribunal considered the total jewellery found and the exemption limits as per CBDT Instruction No. 1916 (500 grams per lady and 200 grams per male). The assessee was able to provide sources for the investment in jewellery through purchase invoices. Therefore, the difference of 193.51 grams was sufficiently explained in the context of a joint family and multiple ladies in the family. The Tribunal also held that the addition of ₹16,74,000 for 300 grams of gold bullion was unsustainable. The gold bullion was declared under VDIS-1997 by the assessee's mother-in-law and father-in-law, which was accepted by the department. The AO failed to correlate the gold bullion with the assessee individually, despite it being jointly held and already declared. The Tribunal concluded that in joint families, jewellery and bullions are commonly kept together, and the overall benefit of exemptions under CBDT Circular No. 1916 cannot be denied without individual segregation and correlation. Accordingly, both additions were deleted, and the appeal was allowed.
The ITAT held that the assessee had failed to pursue the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the case was fixed for hearing on four occasions, and on each occasion, neither the assessee nor any authorized representative appeared. Based on this consistent non-appearance, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee did not wish to prosecute the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the learned CIT(A). The appeal was dismissed, and the operative direction was to confirm the order of the CIT(A), implying that the additions made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) stand. No specific issue was left undecided; the decision was based on the assessee's failure to prosecute.
The Tribunal considered the submissions, particularly the concession made by the learned Sr.DR. The Tribunal agreed with the submission that the period of demonetization, which occurred in FY 2016-17, is relevant to Assessment Year 2017-18 and not AY 2016-17. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the matter needed to be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer to take necessary steps as per law to correct the remedy. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient reasons for the delay caused by the assessee's lack of familiarity with electronic and faceless proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes with the direction to the Assessing Officer to rectify the assessment year.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 109 days in filing the appeal, finding sufficient reasons for the delay and noting the assessee's bona fide intent to pursue the appeal, evidenced by the deposit of 20% of the disputed demand. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted that the assessee was given sufficient opportunity but did not appear. However, the Tribunal observed contradictions in the assessee's business nature and contract receipts. It also found that the Assessing Officer had not made independent inquiries to ascertain the source of the contract receipt of ₹11,85,86,475/- and that the 8% profit rate adopted by the AO lacked a rational basis. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order in accordance with the Bench's directions. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had fully explained the source of deposits totaling ₹1,35,48,160/- by providing sufficient explanations, which the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not rebut with any discrepancies. The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s findings, noting that the assessee had not denied receiving the amount, all transactions were through banking channels, and none were doubted by the AO. The Tribunal also corrected the AO's assertion that no return was filed, stating that an original return was filed on 30.07.2014. The Tribunal found that simply because interest was not charged on the transactions, it could not be concluded that the source of the deposits was unexplained. The Tribunal considered the assessee's reliance on various case laws, including those stating that if the source of income is adequately explained, no addition can be made under Section 69A. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition made under Section 69A. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had submitted confirmations and bank statements from all persons from whom unsecured loans were taken during the period under consideration. Copies of ITRs for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12, along with balance sheets and Profit and Loss accounts of the creditors, were also provided. The Tribunal found that since all creditors were assessed to income tax, their identity could not be doubted. Furthermore, all transactions were conducted through banking channels, and details of each transaction, supported by bank statements, were furnished. The Tribunal concluded that the identity of the parties, their creditworthiness, and the genuineness of the transactions were established by the assessee. Therefore, there was no justification to confirm the additions made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A). The addition of ₹7,35,000 was deleted. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.