ITAT Ranchi Judgments — September 2026

The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹10,79,786 on account of 193.51 grams of gold jewellery was unsustainable. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was part of a joint family, and jewellery was kept together. The AO failed to identify and correlate each item of jewellery with individual family members. The Tribunal considered the total jewellery found and the exemption limits as per CBDT Instruction No. 1916 (500 grams per lady and 200 grams per male). The assessee was able to provide sources for the investment in jewellery through purchase invoices. Therefore, the difference of 193.51 grams was sufficiently explained in the context of a joint family and multiple ladies in the family. The Tribunal also held that the addition of ₹16,74,000 for 300 grams of gold bullion was unsustainable. The gold bullion was declared under VDIS-1997 by the assessee's mother-in-law and father-in-law, which was accepted by the department. The AO failed to correlate the gold bullion with the assessee individually, despite it being jointly held and already declared. The Tribunal concluded that in joint families, jewellery and bullions are commonly kept together, and the overall benefit of exemptions under CBDT Circular No. 1916 cannot be denied without individual segregation and correlation. Accordingly, both additions were deleted, and the appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal considered the submissions, particularly the concession made by the learned Sr.DR. The Tribunal agreed with the submission that the period of demonetization, which occurred in FY 2016-17, is relevant to Assessment Year 2017-18 and not AY 2016-17. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the matter needed to be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer to take necessary steps as per law to correct the remedy. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient reasons for the delay caused by the assessee's lack of familiarity with electronic and faceless proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes with the direction to the Assessing Officer to rectify the assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had fully explained the source of deposits totaling ₹1,35,48,160/- by providing sufficient explanations, which the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not rebut with any discrepancies. The Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s findings, noting that the assessee had not denied receiving the amount, all transactions were through banking channels, and none were doubted by the AO. The Tribunal also corrected the AO's assertion that no return was filed, stating that an original return was filed on 30.07.2014. The Tribunal found that simply because interest was not charged on the transactions, it could not be concluded that the source of the deposits was unexplained. The Tribunal considered the assessee's reliance on various case laws, including those stating that if the source of income is adequately explained, no addition can be made under Section 69A. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition made under Section 69A. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 109 days in filing the appeal, finding sufficient reasons for the delay and noting the assessee's bona fide intent to pursue the appeal, evidenced by the deposit of 20% of the disputed demand. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal noted that the assessee was given sufficient opportunity but did not appear. However, the Tribunal observed contradictions in the assessee's business nature and contract receipts. It also found that the Assessing Officer had not made independent inquiries to ascertain the source of the contract receipt of ₹11,85,86,475/- and that the 8% profit rate adopted by the AO lacked a rational basis. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order in accordance with the Bench's directions. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The ITAT held that the assessee had failed to pursue the appeal. The Tribunal noted that the case was fixed for hearing on four occasions, and on each occasion, neither the assessee nor any authorized representative appeared. Based on this consistent non-appearance, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee did not wish to prosecute the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the learned CIT(A). The appeal was dismissed, and the operative direction was to confirm the order of the CIT(A), implying that the additions made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) stand. No specific issue was left undecided; the decision was based on the assessee's failure to prosecute.

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and found it appropriate to restore the matter back to the file of the learned CIT(Exemption). The Tribunal directed the assessee to produce all the required documents before the CIT(Exemption) so that the application for registration can be decided on merits. The reasoning for this decision was based on the submission by the appellant's counsel that one more opportunity should be provided due to the illness of the person responsible for submitting the details. The learned CIT-Departmental Representative did not raise any serious objection. Therefore, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with the operative direction being to re-examine the application after the assessee provides the necessary details. No specific issue was left undecided, as the Tribunal chose to remand the matter for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹1,11,21,634/- representing interest paid to the creditor companies was unsustainable under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal reasoned that interest paid is an expenditure and not a 'sum credited' representing an unexplained receipt, and therefore, cannot be brought within the purview of Section 68. The Tribunal noted that the AO had allowed this interest as a business expenditure, creating an inconsistency. Regarding the principal amount of unsecured loans, the Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing details of the creditors, including their identity, addresses, PANs, and confirmations. The Tribunal also noted that the creditor companies were RBI-registered NBFCs, regularly assessed to tax, and had substantial returned income. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. and CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd., which state that once the assessee establishes the identity, genuineness, and capacity of the creditors, the onus shifts to the Revenue to prove otherwise. The Tribunal observed that the Revenue had not brought on record any independent material to disprove the genuineness of the loans beyond the AO's belief that the companies were shell entities. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided. The operative direction was to delete the addition related to interest.

The Tribunal admitted the additional grounds raised by the assessee, considering them purely legal and capable of being raised at any stage, citing the decision in NTPC Vs CIT. The Tribunal noted that the notice under Section 148A(b) was issued on March 22, 2022, requiring a response by March 29, 2022, which provided only seven days, falling short of the mandatory minimum seven clear days stipulated by law. Relying on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Satish Kumar Vs PCIT and a coordinate bench's decision in Agarwal Metcom Private Limited vs ACIT/DCIT, the Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148A(b) was invalid. Consequently, the reassessment order passed under Section 147 and the subsequent revisionary proceedings under Section 263 were also deemed void. The Tribunal quashed the notice under Section 148A(b) and all subsequent proceedings. The appeal was allowed on this ground, and other issues were not adjudicated.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had submitted confirmations and bank statements from all persons from whom unsecured loans were taken during the period under consideration. Copies of ITRs for AY 2010-11 and 2011-12, along with balance sheets and Profit and Loss accounts of the creditors, were also provided. The Tribunal found that since all creditors were assessed to income tax, their identity could not be doubted. Furthermore, all transactions were conducted through banking channels, and details of each transaction, supported by bank statements, were furnished. The Tribunal concluded that the identity of the parties, their creditworthiness, and the genuineness of the transactions were established by the assessee. Therefore, there was no justification to confirm the additions made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A). The addition of ₹7,35,000 was deleted. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal held that while Section 44AD is a presumptive taxation scheme where books of account are not required, the assessee must still provide evidence to establish the genuineness of transactions. The assessee had failed to produce any evidence before the AO, CIT(A), or the Tribunal to substantiate the genuineness of the transactions amounting to ₹11,44,624. The Tribunal found that the assessee was used for routing accommodation entries. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the detailed examination and confirmation of the addition by the CIT(A) and upheld the order. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) categorically noted that the assessee did not furnish the income proof of her husband regarding salary income from Tata Steel, nor did she submit the bank statement regarding the loan availed by her husband. The CIT(A) also noted that the circle rate list furnished did not prove the income source or the difference between the purchase price and stamp duty value. However, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's order clearly indicated that the assessee had submitted copies of the sale agreement and sale deed, 26AS, and bank statements in response to notices. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A)'s observation that the assessee failed to furnish documentary evidence was contrary to the AO's findings. Therefore, the Tribunal held that there was no basis for the CIT(A)'s observation that the assessee failed to furnish documentary evidence such as bank statements and proof of income from her husband's salary and loan. The Tribunal noted that the AO had invoked Section 133(6) to call for information from the Sub-Registrar. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order confirming the addition was contrary to the AO's observation that the assessee had furnished the necessary documents. The Tribunal did not make any specific finding on the applicability of Section 56(2)(x) or the other grounds raised by the assessee, as the matter was being remanded.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient reasons for the delay. On the substantive issue, the Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act on 01/03/2023, allowing compliance by 08/03/2023, provided only five clear days for response, which is less than the mandatory seven clear days required by Section 148A(b). The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Satish Kumar vs. PCIT (WP(T) No. 2649 of 2023) and a Coordinate Bench decision in Mantosh Kumar vs. ACIT (ITA No. 80/Ran/2024), which followed the High Court's ruling. The Tribunal found that the notice was void ab initio due to the violation of the clear seven-day requirement. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings, including the assessment order, were quashed as a nullity. The issue regarding the addition of Rs. 72,88,839/- as unexplained money was not decided on merits as the entire proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 101 days in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause based on the assessee's explanation and relying on judicial pronouncements for a liberal approach to condonation. Regarding the additions under Section 40(a)(ia) for 'accounting charges' and 'salary and allowance', the Tribunal found it just and proper to restore the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The assessee is directed to appear before the AO and substantiate that the payments made as 'accounting charges' or in respect of 'salary' did not exceed the threshold limits where TDS was required to be deducted under Section 192 or Section 194J of the Act. The AO is directed to pass a fresh assessment order after considering the assessee's explanation. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes only.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) were not sustainable. The Tribunal noted that the AO made additions by simply comparing the difference in bank deposits with the turnover, without rejecting the assessee's books of account. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the demonetization period was an abnormal period, and people indeed used retail fuel outlets to exchange demonetized currencies. The assessee had provided explanations for the increase in turnover and claimed that all transactions were made through banking channels. The Tribunal found no reason to sustain the additions made by the AO without rejecting the books of account, reconciling the P&L account, or pointing out specific discrepancies. Therefore, the additions were deleted. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

The Tribunal held that when substantial justice is pitted against technicality such as limitation, it is always better to follow the principles of adjudicating in respect of substantial justice. By not condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC, considerable loss could be caused to the assessee, whereas by condoning the delay and adjudicating on merits, the assessee would also understand their mistakes. Therefore, the Tribunal condoned the delay of 173 days in filing the appeal before the NFAC. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issues in the appeal to the file of the NFAC for readjudication on merits after providing the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the NFAC and provide all relevant documents and evidences. The Tribunal did not decide on the specific grounds related to residential status, salary income, TDS credit, or exempt foreign salary income, as these were to be adjudicated by the NFAC upon restoration. The operative direction was to restore the appeal to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee was given sufficient opportunity to be heard, but no one appeared. The Tribunal observed that the assessee, in its statement of facts filed along with the appeal memo, did not provide any supporting documents to substantiate its claim that it had not underreported or misreported income by claiming wrong deductions/exemptions. Consequently, the Tribunal found no merit in the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee and concluded that there was no infirmity in the order of the CIT(A). The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal. No specific issue was left undecided; all grounds were addressed by the dismissal.

The Tribunal first addressed the legal grounds, specifically Ground No. 1 concerning "borrowed satisfaction" and initiation of proceedings under Section 147/148/148A. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A), who had already provided categorical findings that the legal grounds raised by the assessee were not sustainable. Regarding the factual aspect, the Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer made the addition based on a gross profit rate of 25% on purchases from M/s Iskon Steel Traders, which was found to be a non-genuine entity. This was done by following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Ahmedabad Tribunal in Vijay Proteins Vs ACIT, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in the context of Vijay Proteins Ltd., confirmed the principle that when goods are not received from the stated parties but from a different source known to the assessee, and the assessee inflates expenditure through fictitious invoices, disallowing 25% of the purchase price is justified. Since the CIT(A) followed this precedent, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with his order. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the foreign tax credit (FTC) amounting to ₹ 12,11,065/-. The reasoning was based on the principle that DTAA provisions override the provisions of Section 90 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as they are more beneficial to the assessee. The Tribunal respectfully followed decisions of its Coordinate Benches, which have held that assessees are entitled to FTC benefits when DTAA provisions are more beneficial. The issue of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was not expressly decided by the Tribunal, as the primary focus was on the FTC claim. The operative direction was to allow the FTC benefit to the assessee.

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions. Regarding the addition on account of undisclosed investment in the building (issue 3), the assessee argued that the DVO's valuation using CPWD rates was incorrect for Ranchi, and PWD rates should have been applied, referencing the decisions in Gita Kumari Vs ACIT and Poonam Devi Vs ACIT. The Tribunal, following the Coordinate Bench's decision in ITA No. 21/Ran/2022, agreed that PWD rates should have been applied instead of CPWD rates. However, it noted that the CIT(A) had already examined this issue in detail and restricted the addition. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order on this point and upheld it. Regarding the other additions sustained by the CIT(A) – ₹25,05,000 as suppressed professional receipts (issue 1) and ₹5,00,000 as bogus expenses (issue 2) – the assessee's counsel did not present any fresh evidence to support its claims that the suppressed receipts were accounted for or that the expenses were duly vouched. Consequently, these additions sustained by the CIT(A) were also upheld. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The Tribunal found that it was the duty of the Revenue to show that there was some evidence in its possession indicating that the assessee had actually entered into a transaction with M/s. Rajshree Vanijya Udyog. The Revenue had not confronted the assessee with such information. The Tribunal held that merely stating that the assessee was a beneficiary of bogus entries was insufficient to conclude that the assessee was involved in transactions with a bogus entity. Therefore, the Tribunal found no error or infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and upheld it. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Regarding the claim for exemption under Section 54, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee received ownership of five separate residential flats, which contravened the amended Section 54(1) of the Act, disentitling the assessee from claiming exemption. The Tribunal agreed that non-fulfilment of statutory eligibility conditions ipso facto disqualifies the assessee. Consequently, the CIT(A) was right in confirming the AO's disallowance. On the cost of improvement claim of ₹20,26,744, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proof by not furnishing adequate vouchers, bills, and payment details. The Tribunal also found the decision in Ranjan Sen Jain Vs ITO to be based on facts and not legal aspects, thus not following it as a rule of consistency. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the impugned order and upheld it. No issue was expressly left undecided.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee failed to appear before both the revenue authorities, legal issues cannot be raised at this stage. The case is remanded to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee to submit all documents and material.

The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 50C, which allows for the adoption of agreement value under certain conditions, cannot be applied retrospectively to the assessment year 2013-14. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was upheld.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the documents relied upon by the Assessing Officer pertained to different financial years. Consequently, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the documents relied upon by the Assessing Officer were from different financial years and thus irrelevant. Consequently, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) was invalid as it did not provide the mandatory seven clear days for response. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings and the subsequent revisionary order under Section 263 were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for agricultural income was reasonable, following a coordinate bench's decision for the same assessment year. The Tribunal also noted a favorable order for the previous assessment year which had attained finality.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the documents relied upon by the Assessing Officer were from different financial years and thus irrelevant. Consequently, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the documents relied upon by the Assessing Officer were from different financial years and thus irrelevant. Consequently, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the documents relied upon by the Assessing Officer were from different financial years and thus irrelevant. Consequently, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the documents relied upon by the Assessing Officer were from different financial years and thus irrelevant. Consequently, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the documents relied upon by the Assessing Officer were from different financial years and thus irrelevant. Consequently, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.