ITAT Ranchi Judgments — January 2026

The Tribunal found that the assessee could not avail the opportunities to present its case before the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and provide supporting documents.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) rejected the applications for registration under Section 80G due to non-submission of supporting documents. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the CIT(E) for a fresh examination, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit necessary documents.

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's submission about COVID-19 related difficulties and the lack of serious objection from the Revenue, decided to restore the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide all supporting documents.

The Tribunal held that it is imperative for the CIT(E) to provide the assessee a reasonable and sufficient opportunity to explain its case before rejecting the application for registration. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the file of the CIT(E).

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) rejected the applications for registration under Section 80G due to non-submission of supporting documents. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the CIT(E) for a fresh examination, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and to submit necessary documents.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds without considering the merits and adhering to principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, noting the assessee's failure to appear and furnish evidence, restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh examination on merits. The assessee was directed to provide supporting documents and cooperate.

The Tribunal held that the applications were rejected due to non-submission of documents. In the interest of justice, the matters were remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh examination after allowing the assessees to submit all relevant documents and provide an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees were ready to submit the required documents and, in the interest of justice, remanded the cases back to the CIT(E) for re-examination. The assessees were directed to submit all relevant documents during the remand proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment order was bad in law as it went beyond the issues raised in the show-cause notice. It also held that interest income should be treated as business income based on past consistency and that disallowed expenses were genuine business expenses.

The Tribunal held that the applications were rejected due to non-submission of documents. In the interest of justice, the matters were remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh examination after allowing the assessees to submit all relevant documents and provide an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that interest income from fixed deposits, maintained as security for mining contracts, should be treated as business income, consistent with past assessments. It also found the addition on account of estimated profit from iron ore trading to be arbitrary.

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to produce relevant documents before the CIT(E), leading to the rejection of the application. The Tribunal remanded the issue back to the CIT(E) for re-examination.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee raised a legal objection regarding the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) during assessment proceedings. The revenue contended that the return filed in response to the Section 148 notice was belated. The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh after providing opportunities for the assessee to explain the difference.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not receive a reasonable opportunity of being heard by the CIT(A). Therefore, in the interest of justice, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the statutory notices for the reassessment proceedings were allegedly not properly served on the assessee's registered email ID. Due to this improper service, the assessee was deprived of a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's representative claimed a lack of proper opportunities before the lower authorities. Considering the submissions and the fact that the assessment order was passed under Section 147 read with Sections 144 and 144B, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision on merit, with sufficient opportunities provided. The assessee was also directed to appear before the AO to explain the claims.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(E) and the application was rejected on grounds of non-submission of documents. The Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the CIT(E) for a fresh examination, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit necessary documents.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(E) and the application was rejected on grounds of non-submission of documents. The Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the CIT(E) for a fresh examination, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit necessary documents.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus under Section 68 by providing audited financial statements, ITRs, bank statements, share application forms, and confirmations from investor companies. The Tribunal noted that the investor companies were active and had substantial net worth, and the investment was a small percentage of their net worth.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to appear and did not furnish supporting documents. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh examination, with a direction to afford the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to submit supporting documents.

The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the additions. The CIT(A) relied on the Tribunal's decision in the assessee's own case for AY 2016-17, where identical issues were decided in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting that the issue was covered by previous decisions and there was no change in facts or law.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition of ₹ 8.50 lacs, finding the source explained. However, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition of ₹ 3,08,005/- for stamp duty and registration, stating the source was not explained by the assessee. The Tribunal examined the source of ₹ 3,79,888/- credited to the assessee's sister from the deceased father's PF claim.

The Tribunal restored the quantum matters to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication due to ex parte orders and lack of proper compliance. Consequently, penalties levied were quashed as their foundation no longer survived.

The Tribunal restored the quantum matters to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication due to ex parte orders and lack of proper compliance. Consequently, penalties levied were quashed as their foundation no longer survived.

The Tribunal restored the quantum matters to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication due to ex parte orders and lack of proper compliance. Consequently, penalties levied were quashed as their foundation no longer survived.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(Exemption) to grant the assessee another opportunity to present its case and substantiate its claims. The assessee failed to provide a satisfactory response regarding the irrevocable clause.

The Tribunal restored the quantum matters to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication due to ex parte orders and lack of proper compliance. Consequently, penalties levied were quashed as their foundation no longer survived.

The Tribunal noted that these grounds were not raised before the CIT(A). Therefore, the issues were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal restored the quantum matters to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication due to ex parte orders and lack of proper compliance. Consequently, penalties levied were quashed as their foundation no longer survived.

The Tribunal noted that these grounds were not raised before the CIT(A). Therefore, the issues were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal restored the quantum matters to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication due to ex parte orders and lack of proper compliance. Consequently, penalties levied were quashed as their foundation no longer survived.

The Tribunal noted that these grounds were not raised before the CIT(A). Therefore, the issues were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that these grounds were not raised before the CIT(A). Therefore, the issues were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal restored the quantum matters to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication due to ex parte orders and lack of proper compliance. Consequently, penalties levied were quashed as their foundation no longer survived.

The Tribunal restored the quantum matters to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication due to ex parte orders and lack of proper compliance. Consequently, penalties levied were quashed as their foundation no longer survived.

The Tribunal restored the quantum matters to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication due to ex parte orders and lack of proper compliance. Consequently, penalties levied were quashed as their foundation no longer survived.

The Tribunal noted that these grounds were not raised before the CIT(A). Therefore, the issues were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication after providing the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal restored the quantum matters to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication due to ex parte orders and lack of proper compliance. Consequently, penalties levied were quashed as their foundation no longer survived.

The Tribunal restored the quantum matters to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication due to ex parte orders and lack of proper compliance. Consequently, penalties levied were quashed as their foundation no longer survived.

The Tribunal restored the quantum matters to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication due to ex parte orders and lack of proper compliance. Consequently, penalties levied were quashed as their foundation no longer survived.

The Tribunal restored the quantum matters to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication due to ex parte orders and lack of proper compliance. Consequently, penalties levied were quashed as their foundation no longer survived.

The Tribunal quashed the notice issued under section 148 and the consequential assessment order. It found significant factual inconsistencies and errors in the reasons recorded for reopening, rendering them unsustainable. The Tribunal noted that the original assessment had already examined the issue of share application money.

The Tribunal restored the quantum matters to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication due to ex parte orders and lack of proper compliance. Consequently, penalties levied were quashed as their foundation no longer survived.

The Tribunal restored the quantum matters to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication due to ex parte orders and lack of proper compliance. Consequently, penalties levied were quashed as their foundation no longer survived.

The Tribunal restored the quantum matters to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication due to ex parte orders and lack of proper compliance. Consequently, penalties levied were quashed as their foundation no longer survived.

The Tribunal restored the quantum matters to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication due to ex parte orders and lack of proper compliance. Consequently, penalties levied were quashed as their foundation no longer survived.

The Tribunal restored the quantum matters to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication due to ex parte orders and lack of proper compliance. Consequently, penalties levied were quashed as their foundation no longer survived.

The Tribunal restored the quantum matters to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication due to ex parte orders and lack of proper compliance. Consequently, penalties levied were quashed as their foundation no longer survived.

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening did not indicate any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts. The reassessment was based on a change of opinion and not on any specific allegation of suppression of material facts, making the reopening unsustainable.