ITAT Ranchi Judgments — July 2026

The Tribunal held that the reopening notices were issued in violation of CBDT circulars dated 04.03.2021 and 12.03.2021, as the information used for reopening was received before the circular's cut-off date. Therefore, the notices and consequential assessments were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening notices were issued in violation of CBDT circulars dated 04.03.2021 and 12.03.2021, as the information used for reopening was received before the circular's cut-off date. Therefore, the notices and consequential assessments were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the reopening notices were issued in violation of CBDT circulars dated 04.03.2021 and 12.03.2021, as the information used for reopening was received before the circular's cut-off date. Therefore, the notices and consequential assessments were quashed.

The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty. Since the quantum assessment was pending, the penalty order was also set aside.

The Tribunal restored the issues in all appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication. This was done in the interest of justice, considering the ex parte nature of the original assessment and the assessee's demise.

The Tribunal restored the issue of Mutual Fund investments to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO is to examine if the cash receipts and Mutual Fund investments were recorded in the assessee's books and considered in the claimed exempt income.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the derivative income addition, finding it to be a double addition as the income was already offered by the assessee. However, the issue of loans from shell companies was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the derivative income addition, finding it to be a double addition as the income was already offered by the assessee. However, the issue of loans from shell companies was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that while Form No. 10 was filed late, the CIT(A) had correctly followed a coordinate bench decision that allowed for condonation of delay. The filing of the form was considered a procedural formality that could be condoned as it was filed before the assessment was completed.

The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the assessee's books of account due to improper maintenance. However, it found the estimated gross profit rate of 11.25% to be excessive.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot use Section 263 powers for mere reverification of evidence already examined by the AO. The AO had considered the issue and formed an opinion, making the PCIT's order unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the AO had thoroughly examined the issue of the sale of flats, including their valuation, and had accepted the returned income after due inquiry. Therefore, the PCIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable as it sought to replace the AO's opinion with his own without pointing out a specific error.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed appeals when the tax effect was below the prescribed threshold. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for readjudication. The application is to be treated as an application for extension of registration, considering the registration already granted.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) was invalid as it did not provide the requisite seven clear days for the assessee to respond. Consequently, the reassessment order passed based on this invalid notice was also deemed invalid, rendering the Section 263 revisionary order invalid.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) was invalid because it did not provide the mandatory 7 days' time. Consequently, the assessment order based on this invalid notice was also quashed.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate, furnish all documents, and avoid unjustified adjournments.

The Tribunal held that the intimation issued under Section 143(1) was erroneous as it did not consider the extended due date for filing the return. Therefore, the intimation was quashed.

The Tribunal found that the evidence produced by the assessee primarily consisted of their own internal records, lacking independent substantiation from the creditors. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal restored the issues in all appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication. This was done in the interest of justice, considering the ex parte nature of the original assessment and the assessee's demise.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided requisite evidence to the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noted that the AO had not brought any evidence on record to demonstrate that the assessee had sold any property for which short-term capital gain was liable to be levied. The Tribunal found this to be a case of violation of natural justice. To provide the AO another opportunity for proper assessment, the issues were restored to the file of the AO for readjudication. The AO was directed to grant the assessee an adequate opportunity of hearing and to provide the assessee with all documents available with him on which he proposes to make additions. The AO was also directed not to demand the assessee to prove a negative. The addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not deleted but the matter was remanded.

The Tribunal restored the issues in all appeals to the file of the Assessing Officer for readjudication. This was done in the interest of justice, considering the ex parte nature of the original assessment and the assessee's demise.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate and furnish all necessary documents.

The Tribunal found that the evidence produced by the assessee primarily consisted of their own internal records, lacking independent substantiation from the creditors. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed appeals when the tax effect was below the prescribed threshold. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed appeals when the tax effect was below the prescribed threshold. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the assessee received the sale consideration by cheques, which were duly credited to the bank account. Therefore, the provisions of Section 269SS and 271D are not applicable.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed appeals when the tax effect was below the prescribed threshold. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on this ground.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate, furnish all documents, and avoid unjustified adjournments.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed appeals when the tax effect was below the prescribed threshold. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed on this ground.

The CIT(A) deleted the addition after considering the remand report, which did not controvert the assessee's contentions and found no adverse findings on sales. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, noting that petrol pumps were permitted to accept demonetized currency.

The Tribunal held that the assessee society was functioning for the benefit of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and its membership and finances substantially met the requirements of Section 10(27). Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the exemption.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal partly, directing adjustments for corporate guarantee at 0.5%, recomputing interest at 9%, deleting ad-hoc disallowance for foreign travel, adopting State Electricity Board rates for Section 80IA deduction, and treating carbon credit receipts as capital receipts.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the quantum appeal to the AO for readjudication. The penalty appeal was allowed as the quantum appeal was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the assessee society was indeed functioning for the benefit of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and its finances were substantially provided by the government and other cooperative societies. Therefore, it was entitled to the exemption.

The Tribunal held that the assessee society was indeed functioning for the benefit of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and its membership and finances substantially met the requirements of Section 10(27). Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the exemption.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 153C was invalid because the assessee's AO did not record independent satisfaction. Following High Court precedents, the Tribunal quashed the notice and the consequential assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee society was functioning for the benefit of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and its membership and finances substantially met the requirements of Section 10(27). Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the exemption.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that directing the AO to verify the claim met the requirements of Rule 46A. Therefore, there was no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) was invalid as it did not provide the requisite seven days for compliance. Consequently, the reassessment order passed under Section 147 was also deemed invalid, rendering the subsequent Section 263 revisionary proceedings invalid.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the principles of natural justice and the need for a liberal approach in such matters. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee fulfills the conditions of Section 10(27) as it promotes the interest of SC/ST, its membership includes cooperative societies for similar purposes, and its finances are substantially provided by the government and other cooperative societies. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the exemption.

The Tribunal held that the assessee society was functioning for the benefit of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, and its membership and finances substantially met the requirements of Section 10(27). Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the exemption.

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate, furnish all documents, and avoid unjustified adjournments.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 153C was invalid because the assessee's AO did not record independent satisfaction. Following High Court precedents, the Tribunal quashed the notice and the consequential assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the quantum appeal to the AO for readjudication. The penalty appeal was allowed as the quantum appeal was set aside.

The Tribunal held that FCRA registration is not a prerequisite for obtaining registration under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the CIT(Exemption) was directed to re-adjudicate the assessee's applications for 12A and 80G registration without considering the FCRA issue.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions forming the basis of penalty proceedings were set aside, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 271AAC(1) had no foundation. Therefore, the penalties were deleted.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not provide adequate time for the assessee to respond to the show cause notice. Therefore, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee did not come with clean hands, as evidenced by the claim of notices going to spam and seeking adjournments. Since no documentary evidence supported the reopening claim and the assessee failed to produce evidence before lower authorities, the appeal was dismissed.