ITAT Ranchi Judgments — June 2026

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The assessee will be given an adequate opportunity to be heard and to refer the matter to the DVO.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the matter for adjudication on merits. Principles of natural justice were emphasized over procedural lapses.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to substantiate its claims regarding GST and VAT collections, and the CIT(A) was directed to consider Rule 46A for admitting fresh evidence.

The Tribunal held that the commission paid was 'referral commission' for bringing customers, not in relation to securities transactions. The genuineness of the payments was not substantiated, and the evidence indicated the amounts were adjusted to avoid tax liability for recipients.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A was invalid as it did not provide the statutory 7 days' time for compliance. Consequently, the assessment order based on this invalid notice was also quashed.

The Tribunal held that compliance with Section 194C(6) is independent of Section 194C(7). Following precedent from the ITAT Hyderabad Bench and the Madras High Court, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance.

The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) as relief was granted after considering the remand report. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate and be given an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard. The assessee was also directed to cooperate in the set-aside proceedings.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the PCIT for re-adjudication. The PCIT was directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard and the assessee was directed to cooperate in the proceedings.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the set-aside proceedings and granted an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that where an assessee has not earned any exempt income, no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted. Following various High Court decisions, the disallowance was deleted.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for readjudication. The assessee will be given an opportunity to substantiate its claim with proper bills and vouchers.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for readjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to grant an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The tribunal decided to restore the appeals to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to proceed with the assessments only after the finalization of the CBI proceedings concerning the assessee.

The tribunal decided to restore the appeals to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to proceed with the assessments only after the finalization of the CBI proceedings concerning the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The Assessing Officer is to grant an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the issues should be restored to the CIT(A) for readjudication. The assessee should be granted an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The tribunal decided to restore the appeals to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to proceed with the assessments only after the finalization of the CBI proceedings concerning the assessee.

The tribunal decided to restore the appeals to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to proceed with the assessments only after the finalization of the CBI proceedings concerning the assessee.

The tribunal decided to restore the appeals to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to proceed with the assessments only after the finalization of the CBI proceedings concerning the assessee.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the interest of justice. Recognizing the assessee's prayer for an opportunity to present its case, the Tribunal remitted the appeals back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the interest of justice. Recognizing the assessee's prayer for an opportunity to present its case, the Tribunal remitted the appeals back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of PF/ESI contributions, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The issue of TDS credit was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not decided the case on merits due to the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue back to the CIT(A) to decide on merits after condoning the delay.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of PF/ESI contributions, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. The issue of TDS credit was remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer, directing that the assessee be given an adequate opportunity to present their case and substantiate their income. The Tribunal noted the assessee's claim that the cash transactions were part of their business as a Banking Correspondent Agent.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee had not paid tax on the disclosed undisclosed income, they were liable for a 60% penalty under Section 271AAB(1)(c), which is automatic and leaves no discretion to the Assessing Officer. The argument regarding the vague penalty notice was rejected, as the penalty provision is self-executing. The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A).

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing a retrospective CBDT notification. Following coordinate bench decisions, the Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the full exemption of leave encashment under Section 10(10AA)(ii).

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merit after the assessee files an application for condonation of delay. The CIT(A) had previously dismissed the appeal solely on the grounds of delay.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits, allowing the assessee to file an application for condonation of delay. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay without adjudicating the merits.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A of the Act cannot be confirmed without a specific finding on whether the penalty was for under-reporting or misreporting of income. The Tribunal deleted the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A of the Act cannot be confirmed without a specific finding on whether the penalty was for under-reporting or misreporting of income. The Tribunal deleted the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 270A of the Act cannot be confirmed without a specific finding on whether the penalty was for under-reporting or misreporting of income. The Tribunal deleted the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the need to advance substantial justice and referencing Supreme Court judgments on liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause'. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on its merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was not on merit as the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance. For the interest of justice, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration after affording the assessee an opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal found that the AO passed an ex-parte order and the CIT(A)'s order was not well-explained. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the AO for fresh consideration after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found that the AO passed an ex-parte order and the CIT(A)'s order was not well-explained. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the AO for fresh consideration after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment beyond four years was not justified as the assessee denied the transaction and the Assessing Officer failed to prove any failure on the assessee's part to disclose material facts. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the reasons genuine and bonafide. The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(E) to provide an opportunity to the assessee to present its case and documentary evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the reasons genuine and bonafide. The Tribunal restored the applications to the CIT(E) to provide an opportunity to the assessee to present its case and documentary evidence.