ITAT Ranchi Judgments — June 2025

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed against the assessee on 11.03.2022 (or 28.03.2022) was invalid as it was issued against a non-existent entity, given the assessee bank's prior merger and cessation of existence. Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in PCIT vs. Marutiy Suzuki India Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that such an order is a substantive illegality and without jurisdiction, making the impugned addition unsustainable.

The Tribunal considered a report from the Circle Officer dated 13.05.2025, which confirmed that the land sold by the assessee was agricultural land. Based on this, the Tribunal concluded that no capital gains arose from the transaction. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the AO was directed to delete the addition of long-term capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 48,00,000 was unsustainable as the assessee had already shown this amount as income in its audited books and had not claimed it as a corpus donation. Making such an addition would constitute a double addition. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order dated 18.12.2018 was bad in law, null, and void, as it was passed against non-existent persons without issuing fresh notice to the correct legal heir. This action violated principles of natural justice and statutory compliance. Consequently, the impugned order and the alleged addition were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte dismissal without addressing the merits violated Section 250(6) of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the entire issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination on merits, directing that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was passed ex-parte without addressing the merits, which is contrary to section 250(6) of the Act. In the interest of justice and fairness, the Tribunal remanded the entire issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh examination on merits, after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present their case and submit relevant documents, with a directive for the assessee to fully cooperate.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte dismissal without ensuring proper service of notice and without examining the merits of the case, as required by Section 250(6) of the Act, was not justified. The case was therefore remanded back to the CIT(A) to be re-examined on merits after providing the assessee a fresh opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed its order ex parte without addressing the merits of the case, contrary to Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the entire issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal determined that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte dismissal was improper as notices were sent to an outdated email address and not the one provided in Form No. 35, denying the assessee adequate opportunity. The appeal was dismissed on procedural grounds without considering the merits. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for re-examination on merits, directing both parties to ensure diligent compliance with notices.

The Tribunal held that the entire receipts could not be treated as income and that the CIT(A) was right in allowing for expenses, leading to a Gross Profit addition. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to estimate GP at 15% for certain assessment years and deleted additions for others.

The Tribunal held that the entire receipts could not be treated as income and that the CIT(A) was right in allowing for expenses, leading to a Gross Profit addition. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to estimate GP at 15% for certain assessment years and deleted additions for others.

The Tribunal held that the entire receipts could not be treated as income and that the CIT(A) was right in allowing for expenses, leading to a Gross Profit addition. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to estimate GP at 15% for certain assessment years and deleted additions for others.

The Tribunal held that the entire receipts could not be treated as income and that the CIT(A) was right in allowing for expenses, leading to a Gross Profit addition. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to estimate GP at 15% for certain assessment years and deleted additions for others.

The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties regarding the assessee's status as a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The assessee argued it is an instrumentality of the government due to deep and pervasive state control, monopoly status, and performance of sovereign functions. The revenue contended that the assessee did not appear before the AO, leading to an ex-parte assessment.

The Tribunal held that the entire receipts could not be treated as income and that the CIT(A) was right in allowing for expenses, leading to a Gross Profit addition. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to estimate GP at 15% for certain assessment years and deleted additions for others.

The Tribunal held that the entire receipts could not be treated as income and that the CIT(A) was right in allowing for expenses, leading to a Gross Profit addition. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to estimate GP at 15% for certain assessment years and deleted additions for others.

The Tribunal held that the entire receipts could not be treated as income and that the CIT(A) was right in allowing for expenses, leading to a Gross Profit addition. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to estimate GP at 15% for certain assessment years and deleted additions for others.

The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties regarding the assessee's status as a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The assessee argued it is an instrumentality of the government due to deep and pervasive state control, monopoly status, and performance of sovereign functions. The revenue contended that the assessee did not appear before the AO, leading to an ex-parte assessment.

The Tribunal held that the entire receipts could not be treated as income and that the CIT(A) was right in allowing for expenses, leading to a Gross Profit addition. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to estimate GP at 15% for certain assessment years and deleted additions for others.

The Tribunal held that the entire receipts could not be treated as income and that the CIT(A) was right in allowing for expenses, leading to a Gross Profit addition. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to estimate GP at 15% for certain assessment years and deleted additions for others.

The Tribunal held that the entire receipts could not be treated as income and that the CIT(A) was right in allowing for expenses, leading to a Gross Profit addition. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to estimate GP at 15% for certain assessment years and deleted additions for others.

The Tribunal held that the entire receipts could not be treated as income and that the CIT(A) was right in allowing for expenses, leading to a Gross Profit addition. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to estimate GP at 15% for certain assessment years and deleted additions for others.

The Tribunal held that the entire receipts could not be treated as income and that the CIT(A) was right in allowing for expenses, leading to a Gross Profit addition. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to estimate GP at 15% for certain assessment years and deleted additions for others.

The Tribunal held that the entire receipts could not be treated as income and that the CIT(A) was right in allowing for expenses, leading to a Gross Profit addition. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to estimate GP at 15% for certain assessment years and deleted additions for others.

The Tribunal held that the entire receipts could not be treated as income and that the CIT(A) was right in allowing for expenses, leading to a Gross Profit addition. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to estimate GP at 15% for certain assessment years and deleted additions for others.

The Tribunal held that the entire receipts could not be treated as income and that the CIT(A) was right in allowing for expenses, leading to a Gross Profit addition. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to estimate GP at 15% for certain assessment years and deleted additions for others.

The Tribunal held that the entire receipts could not be treated as income and that the CIT(A) was right in allowing for expenses, leading to a Gross Profit addition. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to estimate GP at 15% for certain assessment years and deleted additions for others.

The Tribunal held that the entire receipts could not be treated as income and that the CIT(A) was right in allowing for expenses, leading to a Gross Profit addition. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to estimate GP at 15% for certain assessment years and deleted additions for others.

The Tribunal held that the entire receipts could not be treated as income and that the CIT(A) was right in allowing for expenses, leading to a Gross Profit addition. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to estimate GP at 15% for certain assessment years and deleted additions for others.

The Tribunal held that the entire receipts could not be treated as income and that the CIT(A) was right in allowing for expenses, leading to a Gross Profit addition. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to estimate GP at 15% for certain assessment years and deleted additions for others.

The Tribunal held that the entire receipts could not be treated as income and that the CIT(A) was right in allowing for expenses, leading to a Gross Profit addition. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to estimate GP at 15% for certain assessment years and deleted additions for others.

The Tribunal held that the entire receipts could not be treated as income and that the CIT(A) was right in allowing for expenses, leading to a Gross Profit addition. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to estimate GP at 15% for certain assessment years and deleted additions for others.

The Tribunal held that the entire receipts could not be treated as income and that the CIT(A) was right in allowing for expenses, leading to a Gross Profit addition. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to estimate GP at 15% for certain assessment years and deleted additions for others.

The Tribunal held that the entire receipts could not be treated as income and that the CIT(A) was right in allowing for expenses, leading to a Gross Profit addition. The Tribunal also directed the Assessing Officer to estimate GP at 15% for certain assessment years and deleted additions for others.

The Tribunal considered the submissions of both parties regarding the assessee's status as a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The assessee argued it is an instrumentality of the government due to deep and pervasive state control, monopoly status, and performance of sovereign functions. The revenue contended that the assessee did not appear before the AO, leading to an ex-parte assessment.

The Tribunal noted that according to Section 143(1) of the Act, a show cause notice is mandatory before making any adjustment in the intimation. A perusal of the records indicated that no such notice was issued to the assessee.

The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. As the assessee had applied for and received approval under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had categorically held the assessee to be a going concern. The revenue failed to disprove this finding. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision on revaluation of closing stock was upheld, making the ITAT Kolkata's decision in Shyam Prasad Agarwal inapplicable.

The Tribunal observed that the tax effect in the appeal, Rs. 48,52,410/-, was indeed below the CBDT's monetary threshold of Rs. 60,00,000/- for revenue appeals. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the revenue's appeal was not maintainable.

The Tribunal held that the business cannot be considered to have ceased merely due to the suspension of the mining license, especially since the assessee is actively pursuing restoration through litigation and has kept its machinery ready for use. Therefore, the expenses and depreciation claimed by the assessee should be allowed.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had granted multiple opportunities to the assessee, but they failed to comply. However, considering the undertaking by the assessee's AR to cooperate, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to cooperate and furnish all documents.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had granted multiple opportunities to the assessee, but they failed to comply. However, considering the undertaking by the assessee's AR to cooperate, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to cooperate and furnish all documents.

The Tribunal held that even if the farmers were unaware of applying for share application money, it could be treated as an unsecured loan. The source of funds from IDBI bank and routed through farmers' accounts was clear, and the transactions were confirmed as genuine by the farmers and the bank. The amounts were also repaid.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's report and the order sheet entries indicated that no notice under section 148 of the Act was served on the assessee. Consequently, the assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 and the penalty orders were deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal observed that the reasons recorded by the AO for reopening were vague and did not clearly indicate any specific evasion by the assessee. The AO's own uncertainty about the taxability of capital gains and the absence of a mention of non-disclosure by the assessee were noted. Consequently, the issuance of the notice under section 148 and the subsequent reopening of assessment were deemed invalid.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) after being satisfied with the assessee's reasonable cause. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee could not produce evidence before the AO, leading to an assessment under section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had granted multiple opportunities to the assessee, but they failed to comply. However, considering the undertaking by the assessee's AR to cooperate, the Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to cooperate and furnish all documents.

The Tribunal deleted the disallowance on general expenses as the assessee's suo motu disallowance was higher. It also deleted the disallowance on foreign travel expenses for the same reason. The Tribunal directed recomputation of interest on a loan at 9% and corporate guarantee at 0.5%, and allowed deduction under Section 80IA based on State Electricity Board rates.

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer's report and the order sheet entries indicated that no notice under section 148 of the Act was served on the assessee. Consequently, the assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 and the penalty orders were deemed unsustainable.

The tribunal allowed the appeal concerning transfer pricing, directing the adoption of the TNMM method due to the erroneous application of the resale price method to incomparable products. However, the disallowance under Section 14A, both under normal provisions and for book profit computation under Section 115JB, was upheld.