ITAT Surat Judgments — August 2025

The Tribunal, relying on decisions of the Gujarat High Court, held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from investments in a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The delay in filing the appeals was condoned subject to a cost.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on additions made on an estimated basis. It followed its own precedents and High Court decisions to delete the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid because the approval for reopening was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (PCCIT), as required by Section 151(ii) for the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the reassessment order and the penalty were quashed.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee claimed to have received goods, the crucial evidence of actual movement and stock register was missing. Therefore, the matter required further verification.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide credible evidence to support the claim of identity theft and victimization. The onus to prove the source of deposits rests on the assessee, and since no satisfactory explanation was provided, the addition was justified.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid because the approval for reopening was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax (PCIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (PCCIT), as required by Section 151(ii) for the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the reassessment order and the penalty were quashed.

The Tribunal, relying on decisions of the Gujarat High Court, held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from investments in a co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The delay in filing the appeals was condoned subject to a cost.

The Tribunal noted that the trust deed's objects were confined to the Visha Shrimali Jain Samaj community and were not for the benefit of the public at large. The claimed amendment to the trust deed, which would have allowed for broader charitable activities, was not substantiated with credible evidence, as a copy was not filed with the CIT(E) or the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal found no reason to differ from the CIT(E)'s finding.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on additions made on an estimated basis. It followed its own precedents and High Court decisions to delete the penalty.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on additions made on an estimated basis. It followed its own precedents and High Court decisions to delete the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the AO's estimation of 8% profit was unsustainable as it lacked basis and comparable data. The CIT(A)'s estimation of 4% was also deemed incorrect as it was higher than industry norms and the appellant's demonstrated performance. The Tribunal directed the AO to compute the income at 2.7% of the turnover.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied on additions made on an estimated basis. It followed its own precedents and High Court decisions to delete the penalty.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided complete details of capital introduction by partners to the CIT(A), including ITRs, computation of income, and bank statements, which were not filed before the AO. Relying on the decisions of the Gujarat High Court and Supreme Court, the Tribunal observed that if the capital introduction is reflected in the books and confirmed by partners, the inquiry should be made at the partner's level, not the firm's. The addition of partner's capital as unexplained investment is not tenable.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence during the appellate proceedings, including confirmations and identity proofs, which were not rejected by the AO. However, due to incomplete identity proofs for some recipients, a partial disallowance was deemed reasonable.

The CIT(A) observed that the assessee could not provide a proper explanation for the fall in GP and also failed to produce stock records and quantitative details. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's action of rejecting the books of account and confirming the addition. However, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) failed to consider the remand report and rejoinder submitted by the appellant, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the assessee-trust's main objects were religious in nature, which is a contravention of Section 80G(5)(iii). The expenditure on religious activities significantly exceeded the 5% limit stipulated in Section 80G(5B), making the trust ineligible for approval.

The Tribunal held that any proceedings initiated or notice issued against a deceased person are invalid and a nullity in law. Relying on High Court and Supreme Court precedents, it was established that an assessment order cannot be made on a dead person.

The Tribunal held that the cooperative bank is a cooperative society itself. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decisions, the Tribunal ruled that deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) is available on interest earned from investments made with a cooperative bank.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on jurisdictional High Court rulings that where loans are repaid in subsequent years and identity of lenders is established, additions under Section 68 are not warranted. Corresponding disallowances for interest and commission were also deleted.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on jurisdictional High Court rulings that where loans are repaid in subsequent years and identity of lenders is established, additions under Section 68 are not warranted. Corresponding disallowances for interest and commission were also deleted.

The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal on grounds of limitation, noting a delay of 5 months in filing. The CIT(A) found no sufficient cause for the delay, relying on a Supreme Court decision. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) did not consider the reasons for delay provided by the assessee, such as the assessment order being served at the wrong address, and thus dismissed the appeal without considering the merits.

The Tribunal held that the cooperative bank is a cooperative society itself. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decisions, the Tribunal ruled that deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) is available on interest earned from investments made with a cooperative bank.

The Tribunal held that the cooperative bank is a cooperative society itself. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decisions, the Tribunal ruled that deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) is available on interest earned from investments made with a cooperative bank.

The Tribunal held that if the unsecured loans were repaid in subsequent years and the AO accepted the repayment, then no addition could be made in the current year. Consequently, the corresponding disallowances for commission and interest expenses also could not be sustained.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on jurisdictional High Court rulings that where loans are repaid in subsequent years and identity of lenders is established, additions under Section 68 are not warranted. Corresponding disallowances for interest and commission were also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the cooperative bank is a cooperative society itself. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decisions, the Tribunal ruled that deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) is available on interest earned from investments made with a cooperative bank.

The CIT(A) set aside the AO's order and remanded the case back for fresh assessment without deciding the jurisdictional and legal grounds raised by the assessee. The Tribunal, relying on previous judgments, held that the CIT(A) should have decided these grounds first.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not commented on the merits of the case and had dismissed the appeal ex-parte. Furthermore, notices for hearing were not issued to the proper email address, meaning the assessee was not afforded an opportunity of hearing. Consequently, the Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication of the issues contested by the assessee. The CIT(A) was directed to give the assessee an opportunity of hearing and then adjudicate the issues in accordance with the Income Tax Law. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the merits of grounds 3, 4, and 5 concerning the reopening of assessment and the additions made.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to issue a mandatory notice under section 143(2) of the Act, which is a curable defect. Relying on Supreme Court and other High Court decisions, the Tribunal found the assessment order to be invalid.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing substantial justice over technicalities, subject to a payment of Rs. 10,000. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and remitted the matters back for de novo consideration, directing the CIT(E) to grant adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest earned from investments made with a cooperative bank, following the jurisdictional High Court's decisions. The revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was incorrect. The assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including confirmations, bank statements, and proof of repayment in subsequent years, which the PCIT failed to properly consider.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made under Section 69A and confirmed the penalties levied under Sections 271(1)(c) and 271AAC. The assessee's failure to provide explanations or rebuttals before the lower authorities led to the dismissal of appeals.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing substantial justice over technicalities, subject to a payment of Rs. 10,000. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and remitted the matters back for de novo consideration, directing the CIT(E) to grant adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made under Section 69A and confirmed the penalties levied under Sections 271(1)(c) and 271AAC. The assessee's failure to provide explanations or rebuttals before the lower authorities led to the dismissal of appeals.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made under Section 69A and confirmed the penalties levied under Sections 271(1)(c) and 271AAC. The assessee's failure to provide explanations or rebuttals before the lower authorities led to the dismissal of appeals.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made under Section 69A and confirmed the penalties levied under Sections 271(1)(c) and 271AAC. The assessee's failure to provide explanations or rebuttals before the lower authorities led to the dismissal of appeals.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made under Section 69A and confirmed the penalties levied under Sections 271(1)(c) and 271AAC. The assessee's failure to provide explanations or rebuttals before the lower authorities led to the dismissal of appeals.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made under Section 69A and confirmed the penalties levied under Sections 271(1)(c) and 271AAC. The assessee's failure to provide explanations or rebuttals before the lower authorities led to the dismissal of appeals.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made under Section 69A and confirmed the penalties levied under Sections 271(1)(c) and 271AAC. The assessee's failure to provide explanations or rebuttals before the lower authorities led to the dismissal of appeals.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing substantial justice over technicalities, subject to a payment of Rs. 10,000. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and remitted the matters back for de novo consideration, directing the CIT(E) to grant adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

The tribunal noted the assessee's submission and the Revenue's lack of objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn by the tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the AO-CPC failed to provide an intimation to the assessee regarding the adjustment made, which is a mandatory requirement under the first proviso to section 143(1) of the Act. Therefore, the adjustment was not as per the mandate of the law. The decision in Arham Pumps vs. DCIT was also relied upon.

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee faced delays in filing appeals and applications due to issues with notice service and a misunderstanding of the process. It was held that the principles of natural justice require adequate opportunity for the affected party to be heard. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and remitted the matters back for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) on interest earned from investments made with a cooperative bank, following the jurisdictional High Court's decisions. The revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal upheld the additions made under Section 69A and confirmed the penalties levied under Sections 271(1)(c) and 271AAC. The assessee's failure to provide explanations or rebuttals before the lower authorities led to the dismissal of appeals.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order was violative of Section 250(6) of the Act, as it was passed solely on the ground of non-compliance without addressing the merits. The Tribunal held that the assessee deserved another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred in reopening the assessment without sufficient reason and passing an ex-parte order without providing a proper opportunity to be heard. The addition of Rs. 12,39,000 as long-term capital gain was also questioned for not considering indexed cost of acquisition and not referring the matter to the DVO for valuation.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without adjudicating on merits due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and to decide the case on merit.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not comply with notices issued by the CIT(A), leading to an ex-parte order without adjudication on merits. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal also observed that the AO incorrectly treated the entire sale receipts as undisclosed income and directed the AO to allow the cost of acquisition or indexed cost of acquisition.