ITAT Surat Judgments — January 2026

The Tribunal noted that the facts of the present case were identical to the co-owner's case where the addition made by the Assessing Officer did not survive. Following the coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer did not survive and allowed the appeal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and observed that the assessee failed to comply with the CIT(A)'s directions. However, considering the assessee's prayer for an opportunity to furnish all details, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 on 10.04.2023 was beyond the prescribed limitation period. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated based on this invalid notice were considered void ab initio and liable to be quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte and that the assessee has now submitted additional evidence relevant to the Section 54F deduction. In the interest of justice, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine due to delay. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, with a direction for the assessee to comply with notices.

The Tribunal found that the matter required proper verification by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a student, provided a plausible explanation that the deposits were temporary and made by relatives for visa purposes, supported by details of deposits and withdrawals. Since the revenue did not provide material to controvert the genuineness of these transactions, the addition was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the purpose of Section 12A regarding audit reports is satisfied when the report is on record. Procedural or technical lapses, such as a delay in the electronic approval of an audit report, should not defeat substantive rights of charitable institutions. Denial of exemption solely on this ground is not justified.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without examining the assessee's contention of eligibility for refund and without exercising discretion under Section 249(4)(b). Since new evidence was submitted before the Tribunal, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal noted that the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-compliance. The Tribunal set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, allowing the assessee one more opportunity.

The Tribunal held that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities and that the delay was satisfactorily explained due to the assessee pursuing an alternate statutory remedy. The delay was condoned, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee's declared income was below the taxable limit, no tax was payable, and hence the dismissal by the CIT(A) was unjustified. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, prioritizing substantial justice over technicalities. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had consistently followed the project completion method, recognized by AS-9, which was accepted by the revenue in previous years. The lower authorities failed to consider that ownership transfer and full consideration realization were linked to the sale deed execution, and advance receipts were treated as liabilities, with income offered in later years. Therefore, the additions made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) were incorrect.

The Tribunal noted a delay in filing the appeal, which was condoned due to a genuine reason of the previous legal consultant's inaction. The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) did not properly verify the technical glitches and data discrepancies pointed out by the assessee regarding Form 26AS and Form 16. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) in respect of interest received from a co-operative bank, relying on the decision of the Gujarat High Court. Both the AO and CIT(A) failed to consider this jurisdictional High Court precedent.

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, prioritizing substantial justice over technicalities. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the 'sufficient cause' for the delay and the principle of substantial justice over technical considerations. The Tribunal agreed with both parties to provide an opportunity to the assessee to present their case before the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. Considering the agreement of both parties and principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present their case before the AO. The matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication after hearing the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the bank account was used by the assessee's son for his money transfer business, and the assessee had only earned commission income, which was already offered to tax. Therefore, no addition was warranted.

The Tribunal held that since the cash deposits were recorded as sales in the regular books of account, which were accepted, and the stock was reconciled, these receipts could not be treated as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The addition was therefore unsustainable.

The Tribunal observed the assessee's non-compliance and failure to provide documentary evidence. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to furnish all details and comply with notices.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the revenue did not raise any objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered by its earlier decisions. Following the established precedent, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to recompute the disallowance strictly in accordance with the principles laid down in prior judgments. This involved identifying rates paid to members and non-members, treating the non-member rate as a commercial benchmark, and calculating the differential profit embedded in payments to members.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission about wrong email IDs. Considering the facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and, in the interest of justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication, with a direction to the assessee to furnish all relevant details and documents.

The Tribunal observed the assessee's non-compliance before the lower authorities. However, in the interest of justice, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, with the assessee directed to submit all relevant documents.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance on account of employees' contribution to Provident Fund was not justified as the payment was made within the due time prescribed under the Act, with the initial incorrect date being a typographical error. Consequently, no disallowance was called for.

The Tribunal found it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for the limited purpose of verifying the bills and vouchers pertaining to the disputed expenses.

The Tribunal held that since more than three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, the sanction for issuing the notice under Section 148 should have been granted by a higher authority as per Section 151 of the Act. The approval granted by the Principal Commissioner was found to be invalid, vitiating the subsequent proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were properly explained by the assessee. The assessee had submitted relevant bills, vouchers, and other documents to substantiate the cash deposits.

The Tribunal found that the delay was minimal and there was sufficient cause for the delay. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without considering the merits. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Observing the assessee's non-compliance before the lower authorities, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to submit all details without adjournments.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not properly consider the delay and dismissed the appeal without merit. In the interest of substantial justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal held that the issue of indexed cost of inflation was not examined correctly by the Assessing Officer and restored it for fresh examination, allowing the ground for statistical purposes. Regarding the cost of improvement, the Tribunal found it allowable after examining the details filed by the assessee.

The tribunal found that the assessee had consistently failed to furnish required details. However, in the interest of justice, the tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that cash deposits, when duly reflected in the audited books of account and explained with reference to recorded transactions, cannot be added as unexplained. Similarly, additions based on the proportion of sundry creditors to total purchases, without rejecting the books of account or disproving the identity/genuineness of creditors, are unsustainable.

The Tribunal found that the assessee, being a salaried individual without regular books of accounts, had provided details of withdrawals and bank statements which were ignored by the lower authorities. It was held that the cash payment for on-money was from accounted sources, verified from the bank account.

The Tribunal found that the notice under section 148 was indeed issued beyond the six-year period, based on the provided extract from the Income Tax Portal. Consequently, the assessment was deemed void ab initio.

The Tribunal found that although the details were on record, they were not properly examined by the Assessing Officer. Upon verification of the materials, the Tribunal was satisfied that the source of capital introduction was duly explained, thus no addition under section 68 was warranted.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's method of determining the cost of improvement, by extending the construction period to 13 years based on a chart, was not supported by facts. The construction period could not have been so prolonged.

The Tribunal restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, allowing the assessee to submit all relevant documents. The assessee was directed to comply with the proceedings without unnecessary adjournments.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to submit all relevant documents without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had adequately explained the source of investment through loans and provided evidence of repayment and lender details. The lower authorities rejected these without valid reasons, thus the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to produce substantial documents before the CIT(E). However, considering that the assessee prayed for an opportunity to furnish the same, the Tribunal held that remanding the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration of the application would serve the interests of justice.

The Tribunal found that the delay was minimal and there was sufficient cause for the delay. The CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals without considering the merits. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the bank statements clearly reflected the sources of capital introduced. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of these deposits and to pass an order after due consideration.

The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order to remand the case back to the Assessing Officer for necessary verification and inquiry. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was affirmed.

The Tribunal restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, allowing the assessee to submit all relevant documents. The assessee was directed to comply with the proceedings without unnecessary adjournments.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to submit all relevant documents and comply with notices without adjournments.