ITAT Ranchi Judgments — August 2026

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to consider all documents produced by the assessee and examine the issue afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, considering the details submitted by the assessee. The assessee was directed to appear before the AO and provide explanations, with a direction for a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, acknowledging the assessee's lack of knowledge and the potential for justice. The assessee was directed to appear before the Assessing Officer to explain her case.

The Tribunal found that the penalty issue should be decided after the quantum appeal is adjudicated. Therefore, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) to decide the penalty after considering the quantum appeal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the matter for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to provide the required details.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) by condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the issue afresh after considering the fresh material and documents to be produced by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that since the Section 263 order, which was the basis for the consequential assessment order, had already been quashed by the ITAT, the consequential assessment order was invalid. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(E) to reconsider the application and obtain the earlier exemption certificate. The assessee was directed to make necessary compliances for fresh registration.

The Tribunal found that the appeal was not adjudicated on merits by the CIT(A) due to delay. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that mere additions or disallowances in the assessment order do not automatically lead to the imposition of penalty. The assessee had discharged its onus and established the bona fide nature of its claims, leading to the deletion of the penalty.

The Tribunal held that receipts from the sale of carbon credits are capital in nature and not taxable. For mining expenses, it was decided that while not allowable as revenue expenditure, depreciation is permissible.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on merits, especially when the AO did not provide crucial documents and reopened the case on one reason while making additions on another. The reassessment order was passed ex-parte and arbitrarily.

The Tribunal is hearing appeals concerning additions made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee has not pressed one ground of appeal. The case involves unexplained cash and a property transaction.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and granting the assessee a last opportunity to present its case and evidence.

The Tribunal found that while opportunities were provided, the assessee claimed they were not adequate. Considering the principles of natural justice and that tax laws are welfare legislation, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since no addition was made in the case of a co-owner (Smt. Saroj Devi) based on a departmental valuation report which determined the fair market value at ₹29,20,000, there was no justification for sustaining the addition in the assessee's case.

The Tribunal is hearing appeals concerning additions made by the Assessing Officer. The assessee has not pressed one ground of appeal. The case involves unexplained cash and a property transaction.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the source of the cash deposit, and the explanations offered appeared to be an afterthought without corroborative evidence. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was upheld.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing Supreme Court judgments that emphasize liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' to advance substantial justice. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was made when the assessee failed to provide evidence for the source of cash deposits, and the CIT(A) passed an order due to the assessee's non-compliance. The Tribunal found that affording an opportunity to the assessee to present their case before the AO would serve the interests of justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the appeal back to the file of the AO for fresh consideration. The assessee was to be given an opportunity to place documentary evidence. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that since the original assessment order was set aside by the CIT(A) and a fresh assessment was made where the assessee's returned income was accepted without modification, the penalty levied based on the earlier order had no basis and was therefore set aside.

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) by applying the principle of 'sufficient cause' liberally to advance substantial justice. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the appeal was remitted back for fresh consideration on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing Supreme Court judgments that emphasize liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' to advance substantial justice. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh adjudication on merits.