ITAT Ranchi Judgments — January 2026

The Tribunal held that lease rent for forest land should be amortized over the lease period. Land and crop compensation was held to be revenue expenditure. Several other issues were decided based on previous rulings.

The Tribunal held that lease rent for forest land should be amortized over the lease period. Land and crop compensation was held to be revenue expenditure. Several other issues were decided based on previous rulings.

The Tribunal held that lease rent for forest land should be amortized over the lease period. Land and crop compensation was held to be revenue expenditure. Several other issues were decided based on previous rulings.

The Tribunal held that lease rent for forest land should be amortized over the lease period. Land and crop compensation was held to be revenue expenditure. Several other issues were decided based on previous rulings.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(E) to grant the assessee another opportunity to present its case and substantiate its claim. This was due to the assessee not providing a complete response before the CIT(E).

The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) granted only one opportunity, and the assessee could not appear. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- per appeal.

The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) granted only one opportunity, and the assessee could not appear. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- per appeal.

The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) granted only one opportunity, and the assessee could not appear. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- per appeal.

The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) granted only one opportunity, and the assessee could not appear. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- per appeal.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(E) to grant the assessee another opportunity to present its case and substantiate its claim. This was due to the assessee not providing a complete response before the CIT(E).

The Tribunal noted that the issue was squarely covered by a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years. The Tribunal followed the precedent, holding that the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under the head 'Demurrage' was incorrect and deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the 12A registration was granted to the assessee before the order under Section 154 was passed. Therefore, the assessee would be entitled to the benefits of Section 12A for all pending proceedings.

The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) granted only one opportunity, and the assessee could not appear. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- per appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had considered that TDS was deducted, payments were made through banking channels, and transactions tallied with ledger accounts. The CIT(A) also noted that TDS returns were filed and there were no written agreements, but the trucks were hired from the market for operations within the mining area. The revenue failed to dislodge the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal held that the outsourcing of the hospital building was not a charitable activity, especially since the income was a percentage of turnover and TDS was deducted under Section 194JB. The assessee failed to demonstrate pure charitable activities or adherence to its objects. The relief provided to patients was minimal compared to the income generated.

The Tribunal allowed amortization of lease consideration over the life of each lease for forest land, restoring the issue to the AO for re-adjudication. For land and crop compensation, the Tribunal held it as revenue expenditure, allowing the deduction.

The Tribunal found that the assessee could not substantiate their claims before the lower authorities. Therefore, the issues in the appeal were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a direction to grant the assessee an opportunity to be heard and to send notices physically, as the assessee claims not to have email.

The Tribunal held that lease rent/depreciation on forest land should be amortized over the lease period. Land and crop compensation was considered a revenue expenditure. Several other issues were decided based on previous rulings or the findings of the CIT(A).

The Tribunal decided various issues, allowing some appeals partly, dismissing others, and allowing some fully. For instance, lease rent/depreciation on forest land was allowed to be amortized over the lease period. Land and crop compensation was held in favor of the assessee. CSR expenses were decided in favor of the revenue.

The Tribunal allowed the amortization of lease consideration over the lease period for forest land, directing the AO to re-adjudicate. For other issues, the tribunal decided based on previous rulings, allowing some claims in favor of the assessee and upholding others in favor of the revenue.

The Tribunal directed that lease consideration for forest land should be amortized over the lease period. For land and crop compensation, the expenditure was held to be revenue in nature. Several other expenses like IICM, mine closure, provisions for NCWA, executive pay revision, siding maintenance, and stripping activity adjustments were decided in favor of the assessee.

The Tribunal allowed amortization of lease consideration over the lease period for forest land, directing the AO to re-adjudicate. Several other issues were decided based on previous rulings, with some appeals being allowed, dismissed, or partly allowed.

The Tribunal directed that lease rent for forest land should be amortized over the lease period. It also held that land and crop compensation paid for mining activities is a revenue expenditure. Several other expenses were decided in favor of the assessee based on previous rulings.

The tribunal decided various issues, including lease rent/depreciation on forest land, land and crop compensation, and other expenses. Some issues were decided in favor of the assessee, some in favor of the revenue, and some were remanded for readjudication.

The Tribunal decided that lease rent/depreciation on forest land should be amortized over the lease period, and land and crop compensation is a revenue expenditure. Several other expenses like IICM charges, mine closure expenses, and provisions for NCWA were held to be allowable, aligning with previous rulings.

The Tribunal directed that lease consideration for forest land should be amortized over the lease period. Various other expenses like land and crop compensation, IICM expenses, mine closure expenses, and provisions for NCWA were decided in favor of the assessee. CSR expenses were decided in favor of the revenue.

The Tribunal decided various issues, allowing some in favour of the assessee and others in favour of the revenue. For instance, lease rent/depreciation on forest land was allowed for amortization over the lease period, while CSR expenses were decided in favour of the revenue. Some appeals were partly allowed, and others were dismissed.

The Tribunal held that lease rent for forest land should be amortized over the lease period. Land and crop compensation was held to be revenue expenditure. Several other issues were decided based on previous rulings.

The Tribunal found that the case was not heard on merit due to non-compliance at both stages. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merit, providing reasonable opportunities to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that lease rent for forest land should be amortized over the lease period. Land and crop compensation was held to be revenue expenditure. Several other issues were decided based on previous rulings.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's representative sought adjournments and claimed lack of documents, which were considered as delay tactics. The assessee had also sought adjournments before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that since the assessee failed to cure the defects in the appeal and did not appear for the hearing, the appeal stands dismissed.

The Tribunal directed that lease rent/consideration for forest land should be amortized over the lease period. For land and crop compensation, the Tribunal held it to be revenue expenditure, allowing deduction.

The tribunal noted that the appeal was filed with defects and the assessee had not cured them. The assessee's request for adjournment was also rejected.

The Tribunal allowed amortization of lease rent over the lease period for forest land, and allowed land and crop compensation as revenue expenditure. Several other issues were decided based on previous rulings, with some appeals being partly allowed and others dismissed.

The Tribunal directed that lease consideration for forest land should be amortized over the lease period. For other issues, the Tribunal decided based on previous rulings, allowing some claims for the assessee and upholding disallowances for the revenue in certain cases.

The Tribunal noted that it was an admitted fact that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated ground No. 9 of the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal found that the subsequent payments and issues regarding provisions were not considered by the CIT(A). Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.

The Tribunal noted that the 12A registration was granted to the assessee before the order under Section 154 was passed. Therefore, the assessee would be entitled to the benefits of Section 12A for all pending proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the outsourcing of the hospital building was not a charitable activity, especially since the income was a percentage of turnover and TDS was deducted under Section 194JB. The assessee failed to demonstrate pure charitable activities or adherence to its objects. The relief provided to patients was minimal compared to the income generated.

The Tribunal observed that the department had accepted net profit rates ranging from 0.91% to 1.36% in previous years and, considering it's a case of no accounts, found it proper to restrict the net profit rate to 2% of the turnover.

The Tribunal held that lease rent for forest land should be amortized over the lease period. Land and crop compensation was held to be revenue expenditure. Several other issues were decided based on previous rulings.

The Tribunal held that lease rent for forest land should be amortized over the lease period. Land and crop compensation was held to be revenue expenditure. Several other issues were decided based on previous rulings.