ITAT Ranchi Judgments — December 2025

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the assessee had discharged its onus regarding the share capital under Section 68 by proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of transactions. It also found the rebate to customers was a legitimate business expenditure based on commercial expediency and supported by evidence, thereby affirming the deletion of both additions.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were void ab initio due to the absence of valid service of notice under Section 148 on the assessee, who was not registered on the e-filing portal and did not receive physical notice. Furthermore, on merits, it found that the property transfer was a gift between husband and wife, without monetary consideration, and therefore, the addition under Section 69A was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that two different GP rates (2.70% on declared sales and 25% on unaccounted purchases) cannot be simultaneously applied for the same assessee and assessment year when income is estimated. It directed the AO to restrict the addition to ₹ 2,40,680/- by consistently applying the 2.70% GP rate to the unaccounted purchases. The Tribunal also ruled that Section 115BBE is not applicable when income is assessed on an estimated basis.

The Tribunal held that two different GP rates (2.70% on declared sales and 25% on unaccounted purchases) cannot be simultaneously applied for the same assessee and assessment year when income is estimated. It directed the AO to restrict the addition to ₹ 2,40,680/- by consistently applying the 2.70% GP rate to the unaccounted purchases. The Tribunal also ruled that Section 115BBE is not applicable when income is assessed on an estimated basis.

The Tribunal found that the initial premise of the Assessing Officer regarding the amount of deposit was factually incorrect. It agreed with the CIT(A) on the correct deposit amount and also accepted that the deposits represented business receipts, warranting an estimation of income.

The Tribunal found that the assessment was completed ex parte due to the assessee's non-compliance. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal observed that the appeal's tax effect was below the monetary limit set by CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024 and did not qualify for any exception. On merits, the Tribunal found that the alleged escaped income was already part of the assessee's declared profit, making a separate addition a case of impermissible double taxation. Since the Assessing Officer did not reject the books of account under Section 145 and the CIT(A) found no infirmity, the addition was not sustainable.

The Tribunal ruled that since the entire cash was already assessed in the hands of another company, as accepted by the Revenue, the addition made in the assessee's hands amounted to impermissible double taxation. It held that once ownership is determined and accepted, the same income cannot be assessed twice. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal ruled that the 300 grams of gold found was within the 400-gram limit allowed for a married woman under CBDT Instruction No. 1916, regardless of its form. It further found the quantity of silver to be reasonable and acknowledged that substantial jewellery had been disclosed in prior returns. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the additions made by the lower authorities for both gold and silver were unsustainable and ordered their deletion.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) based the addition on the DVO's valuation as of the sale/registration date, overlooking the agreement date of 28.06.2010 when part consideration was paid. The Tribunal held that the valuation for section 56(2)(x) should be determined as of the agreement date. Consequently, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for a fresh valuation and order based on the agreement date.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) incorrectly dismissed the appeal on the technical ground of delay, rather than addressing the substantive merits. Consequently, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction to provide the assessee a fair opportunity.

The CIT(A) deleted all the additions, finding that the profit from derivative transactions was genuine and already offered for tax, the commission was not substantiated, and the unsecured loans were supported by sufficient documentation. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal observed that the assessment was completed ex parte without granting the assessee sufficient opportunity to present its case. Upholding principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. This decision applies to appeals for both AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 due to identical facts and issues.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal. It held that ₹25,11,000/- of the total addition, which originated from bank transfers, could not be treated as undisclosed and was effectively deleted. For the remaining cash deposit of ₹53,50,000/-, the matter was remanded back to the AO to allow the assessee a fresh opportunity to explain the source of these cash deposits.

The Tribunal observed that the assessment was completed ex parte without granting the assessee sufficient opportunity to present its case. Upholding principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee. This decision applies to appeals for both AY 2013-14 and 2014-15 due to identical facts and issues.