ITAT Ranchi Judgments — November 2025

In the interest of justice, the tribunal decided to restore the issues in the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication. The AO is directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal, noting the assessee's non-cooperation and failure to submit details to lower authorities, decided to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for readjudication. This decision was made in the interest of justice, ensuring the assessee receives an adequate opportunity to be heard and present details afresh.

The tribunal, in the interest of justice, restored all issues in the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication. The AO is directed to grant the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard before passing a fresh order. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the 133-day delay. Recognizing the assessee's non-cooperation and failure to provide substantiating details to both lower authorities, the Tribunal restored all issues to the Assessing Officer for readjudication, ensuring the assessee is granted an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal condoned a delay of 237 days in filing the appeal. On merits, it held that the assessee failed to prove the source of the Rs. 3 lakhs, as they could neither show the source of professional receipts nor provide issued receipts. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal, noting the assessee's non-cooperation and failure to provide details to the authorities below, restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication. The AO is directed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.

Given the assessee's non-cooperation and lack of substantiated details, the Tribunal decided to restore the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication. The AO is directed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal restored the issues in all three appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, considering the assessee's non-cooperation and failure to provide details to lower authorities. The AO is directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard to explain the transactions.

The Tribunal restored the issues in all three appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, considering the assessee's non-cooperation and failure to provide details to lower authorities. The AO is directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard to explain the transactions.

The Tribunal restored the issues in all three appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, considering the assessee's non-cooperation and failure to provide details to lower authorities. The AO is directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard to explain the transactions.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperation before the lower authorities. In the interest of justice, the issues in appeal are restored to the file of the AO for readjudication. The AO is directed to grant the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard to present the necessary details.

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 was not justified as the assessee proved the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the loan received through banking channels. Citing judicial precedents, the Tribunal also held that the addition under Section 69A for capital introduction from cash in hand was invalid since the cash balance was duly reflected in the audited balance sheet of the previous year and the AO relied on mere suspicion. Both additions were directed to be deleted.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-cooperation and failure to submit details to both lower authorities. In the interest of justice, it restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for readjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal noted that the AO was unduly liberal in applying the peak credit method instead of computing income on the higher actual turnover under Section 44AD. However, as the appeal was filed by the assessee and the AO's method was favorable to them, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere and upheld the orders of the lower authorities.

The Tribunal, following a precedent from a co-ordinate bench, held that the exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiad) cannot be denied merely because the return of income was filed belatedly in response to a notice under section 148, rather than within the time prescribed under section 139(1) or 139(4C). The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the exemption.

The Tribunal observed that the revenue failed to produce evidence of any show cause notice being issued to the assessee before the adjustments were made in the intimation under Section 143(1). Reiterating that a show cause notice is compulsory before making adjustments under Section 143(1) of the Act, the Tribunal quashed the intimation and the consequent order passed by the CIT(A) due to this procedural lapse.

The Tribunal observed that the revenue failed to produce evidence of any show cause notice being issued to the assessee before the adjustments were made in the intimation under Section 143(1). Reiterating that a show cause notice is compulsory before making adjustments under Section 143(1) of the Act, the Tribunal quashed the intimation and the consequent order passed by the CIT(A) due to this procedural lapse.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) considered the application for withdrawal. Recognizing that the matter had already been remanded for de novo adjudication by a previous tribunal order, the ITAT allowed the withdrawal. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal held that disallowing expenditures while treating receipts as income is impermissible. If exemption is denied, expenditures related to business income should be allowed.

The Tribunal observed that the tax effect involved in the appeal was below Rs.60 lakhs. Citing Circular No.9/2024 dated 17.09.2024, the Tribunal ruled that the revenue's appeal was not maintainable due to this low tax effect and consequently dismissed it.

The Tribunal condoned the 19-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, and noting no compliance before lower authorities, the Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO, instructing to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity to provide details and prove the genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity of the creditors. This decision was made because the assessee had not initially provided sufficient details to the AO.

The Tribunal found that the condonation petition lacked specific reasons or details for the 296-day delay. Citing the assessee's 'lackadaisical attitude' and failure to substantiate their case, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, concluding that the delay in filing was not sufficiently explained.

The Tribunal noted that while the transactions dated back to 2013, the registration occurred in AY 2017-18, and the assessee had failed to provide details to the AO. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for readjudication, granting the assessee an adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that denying an exemption under Section 10(23C) and taxing gross receipts is not an 'arithmetical mistake' permissible under Section 143(1) of the Act. Such an action would necessitate computing the income as 'business income' after preparing financial statements, which was not done. Therefore, the intimation issued under Section 143(1) was quashed as being contrary to the provisions of the Act.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT (Exemption)'s orders were ex parte and not on merits. Recognizing the impact on the assessee's substantive rights, the Tribunal decided to grant a final opportunity for compliance and directed the CIT (Exemption) to re-adjudicate the matters afresh, subject to the assessee's strict adherence to all requirements.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had failed to consider the allowability of capital expenditure amounting to ₹1,99,14,936/- during the appellate proceedings, despite having allowed the accumulated funds. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue of capital expenditure back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, ensuring the appellant is provided a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 was invalid as it was issued beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, and the reasons recorded by the AO did not allege any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts. Relying on the first proviso to Section 147 and the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Foramer France, the tribunal quashed the reassessment order.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(E) rejected the application without deciding the issue on merit and without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to appear and submit all necessary documents.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the CIT (Exemption)'s orders were ex parte and not on merits. Recognizing the impact on the assessee's substantive rights, the Tribunal decided to grant a final opportunity for compliance and directed the CIT (Exemption) to re-adjudicate the matters afresh, subject to the assessee's strict adherence to all requirements.

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 was unsustainable because the share application money was a brought-forward balance from a prior financial year, and no fresh credit was received in the assessment year 2013-14. Citing binding precedents, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition for ITA No. 98/RAN/2025. Consequently, ITA No. 97/RAN/2025, concerning rectification, became infructuous and was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 68 was unsustainable because the share application money was a brought-forward balance from a prior financial year, and no fresh credit was received in the assessment year 2013-14. Citing binding precedents, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition for ITA No. 98/RAN/2025. Consequently, ITA No. 97/RAN/2025, concerning rectification, became infructuous and was dismissed.

The Tribunal ruled that the AO had conducted an adequate inquiry and taken a plausible view supported by evidence, thus the PCIT's revision based on a mere difference of opinion was impermissible. It emphasized that the issue was revenue-neutral, income was taxed in a prior year, and the mandatory conditions of error and prejudice to revenue under Section 263 were not met.

The Tribunal found that the assessee could not properly represent their case before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal without considering its merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard and to present their case, with a speaking order to follow.

The Tribunal restored the issues in both appeals to the Assessing Officer for readjudication in the interest of justice. The assessee is granted liberty to raise all legal issues and must cooperate by producing details to prove the genuineness of transactions, failing which the AO may draw adverse inference.

The Tribunal restored the issues in both appeals to the Assessing Officer for readjudication in the interest of justice. The assessee is granted liberty to raise all legal issues and must cooperate by producing details to prove the genuineness of transactions, failing which the AO may draw adverse inference.

The Tribunal noted that the ex parte assessment under Section 144 lacked proper factual verification regarding the genuineness of the transactions. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and remitted the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal found that the assessee could not properly represent their case before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal without considering its merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard and to present their case, with a speaking order to follow.

The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to produce all relevant documents and comply with notices. The CIT(E) was directed to hear the assessee and then decide on the grant of regular registration u/s 12A as deemed fit and proper.

The Tribunal held that a show cause notice issued under Section 274 for penalty under Section 271AAB is defective if it does not specifically mention the charges under Section 271AAB. Consequently, the penalty order was set aside.

The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to produce all relevant documents and comply with notices. The CIT(E) was directed to hear the assessee and then decide on the grant of regular registration u/s 12A as deemed fit and proper.

The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to produce all relevant documents and comply with notices. The CIT(E) was directed to hear the assessee and then decide on the grant of regular registration u/s 12A as deemed fit and proper.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The ITAT observed that the assessee was not afforded an adequate opportunity to present her case and supporting evidence before the CIT(A), emphasizing the need to provide such an opportunity for a fair adjudication.