ITAT Surat Judgments — January 2026

The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was bad in law. Since the assessee had fully disclosed all material facts and paid the due taxes before the issuance of the notice under Section 148, there was no income that had escaped assessment, thus failing the basic jurisdictional requirement for reassessment under Section 147.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed under Section 153C was beyond the period prescribed by law, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in CIT vs. Jasjit Singh. This judgment clarified that for 'other persons' in Section 153C, the period for filing returns is reckoned from the date of receipt of seized materials by their jurisdictional AO, not the date of search. Therefore, the assessment order was considered null and void.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to submit all relevant documents and comply with notices without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the jurisdictional and legal grounds raised by the assessee, merely setting aside the AO's order and referring it back. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) must decide on these legal grounds.

The Tribunal held that interest earned by a co-operative society from investments made in co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) of the Income-tax Act. This is based on the understanding that co-operative banks are considered co-operative societies for the purpose of this deduction, and the exclusion under section 80P(4) does not affect this eligibility when the co-operative bank itself is not liable to pay tax.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were a reasonable proportion of the total turnover and supported by documentary evidence like cash sales invoices and stock records. In the absence of defects in the books of account or cogent material suggesting unexplained sources, the addition made under Section 68 was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the addition related to FDRs amounting to Rs. 42,00,000/- was not sustainable as the source was traced to the assessee's son's income declared under the IDS scheme. For bank deposits, the Tribunal ruled that only embedded profit could be taxed, not the entire deposit amount. For AY 2013-14, the FDR issue was remanded for verification.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) to examine the genuineness of documents pertaining to the land's location. The AO was directed to make a direct reference to the Taluka Development Officer, Palsana, for verification.

The Tribunal, considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, decided to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. Both the assessee's appeals and the Revenue's appeal were allowed for statistical purposes with a direction for the assessee to cooperate fully.

The Tribunal held that the addition related to FDRs amounting to Rs. 42,00,000/- was not sustainable as the source was traced to the assessee's son's income declared under the IDS scheme. For bank deposits, the Tribunal ruled that only embedded profit could be taxed, not the entire deposit amount. For AY 2013-14, the FDR issue was remanded for verification.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee to submit all relevant documents and comply with notices without adjournment.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to submit all relevant documents and comply with notices without seeking unnecessary adjournments.

The Tribunal, considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, decided to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. Both the assessee's appeals and the Revenue's appeal were allowed for statistical purposes with a direction for the assessee to cooperate fully.

The Tribunal, considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, decided to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. Both the assessee's appeals and the Revenue's appeal were allowed for statistical purposes with a direction for the assessee to cooperate fully.

The Tribunal, considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, decided to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. Both the assessee's appeals and the Revenue's appeal were allowed for statistical purposes with a direction for the assessee to cooperate fully.

The Tribunal, considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, decided to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. Both the assessee's appeals and the Revenue's appeal were allowed for statistical purposes with a direction for the assessee to cooperate fully.

The Tribunal held that the addition related to FDRs amounting to Rs. 42,00,000/- was not sustainable as the source was traced to the assessee's son's income declared under the IDS scheme. For bank deposits, the Tribunal ruled that only embedded profit could be taxed, not the entire deposit amount. For AY 2013-14, the FDR issue was remanded for verification.

The Tribunal, considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, decided to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. Both the assessee's appeals and the Revenue's appeal were allowed for statistical purposes with a direction for the assessee to cooperate fully.

The Tribunal held that the reopening under Section 148 was valid as the AO had sufficient information and followed due procedure. However, regarding the merits, while accepting that the assessee had disclosed sales and quantitative details were not disputed, the entire addition for bogus purchases was not sustained. The Tribunal determined a profit of 5% on the alleged bogus purchases over and above the regular profits disclosed.

The tribunal found that the notice issued by the AO under section 148 was time-barred. Consequently, the assessment proceedings were deemed void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the assessee provided details of payments for the use of agricultural land and evidence of agricultural produce sold on cash basis. As these were not disputed by the revenue authorities, no addition was called for.

The Tribunal acceded to the assessee's prayer for an opportunity to produce documents before the Joint Assessing Officer (JAO). The JAO was directed to verify the evidences and then pass the assessment order.

The tribunal held that additions under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act cannot be sustained if loans are repaid within the same financial year, following a Gujarat High Court judgment. However, the loan from Ms. Mamta Soni, which was advanced to the assessee and not repaid, was affirmed.

The tribunal held that the PCIT did not have jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 263 because the subject matter of the revision was already under appeal before the CIT(A), as per Section 263(1)(c) of the Act.

The tribunal observed that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication of the issues, ensuring the assessee is given an opportunity of hearing as per the principles of natural justice.

The ITAT observed that the assessee failed to provide necessary details and explanations to both the AO and the CIT(A). However, considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment, with the assessee agreeing to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the cash, as the father's agricultural income was not disputed. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not sustained.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the Assessing Officer did not survive. The AO's addition was found to be unsustainable based on the details provided, including TDS under section 194IA and the statement of long-term capital gains.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of limitation without considering the merits. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication de novo after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that making a provision for an expense creates a liability and TDS is required at the time of credit or payment, whichever is earlier. The disallowance of expenses under Section 40(a)(ia) does not absolve the assessee from TDS obligations under Section 201(1). The assessee failed to provide evidence that the recipients had paid tax on such income.

The Tribunal observed that the assessee failed to provide necessary details to the CIT(A). However, considering the assessee's plea to furnish all details, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for de novo adjudication, directing the assessee to comply with notices without seeking adjournments.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantiated the genuineness of the investment by producing transaction statements and holding the shares for over ten years. Therefore, the investment was not bogus and the LTCG claim was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were directly traceable to withdrawals from the uncle's bank accounts, and the uncle's confirmation clearly established the source and purpose of funds. The Tribunal also found that the addition on account of share trading income was unsubstantiated, as the assessee had incurred a loss.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's contention regarding the nature of closing stock (talk time unsold) and the offer of differential value as commission income required verification. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and a speaking order.

The tribunal held that the sole information regarding advancing a loan was insufficient to form a belief that income had escaped assessment. Therefore, the reopening of the assessment under section 147 was considered bad in law.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were directly traceable to withdrawals from the uncle's bank accounts, and the uncle's confirmation clearly established the source and purpose of funds. The Tribunal also found that the addition on account of share trading income was unsubstantiated, as the assessee had incurred a loss.

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO due to a minor difference in the estimated value of the property as on 01/04/2001 was not warranted. It was noted that in a similar case of co-owners for the same transaction, the AO had accepted the cost of acquisition at Rs. 1,100/- per sq. meter.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Since the escapement of income admittedly did not exceed Rs. 50 lakhs, the jurisdictional condition prescribed under Section 149(1)(b) was not satisfied, making the assumption of jurisdiction bad in law.

The tribunal held that the issue of addition of cash deposits was concluded in the assessee's own case for a prior assessment year. Therefore, 20% of the cash deposits were to be treated as income for the current year, with credit for income already offered.

The Tribunal found that the impugned order was ex-parte and condoned the delay in filing Form 10AB. The matter was set aside and restored to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication after verifying the commencement date and providing an opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal found that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee's inability to represent their case effectively before the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case by restoring the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee's inability to represent their case effectively before the CIT(A). Therefore, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case by restoring the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not produced evidence for the initial payment of Rs. 1,00,000 on 18.02.2013. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to verify this payment and, if confirmed, to consider the stamp duty value as of the agreement date.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee failed to substantiate claims regarding books of accounts, book results, cash receipts, and discounts received. No new evidence was presented to rebut the CIT(A)'s findings.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) did not consider the assessee's details and passed an ex-parte order. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals) for proper verification of the assessee's details and adjudication, ensuring the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without appreciating the pleadings and evidence filed by the assessee. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh consideration of all evidence and explanations.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and the need for the assessee to present their case. A cost was imposed on the assessee for delaying proceedings due to not intimating address change.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and the need for the assessee to present their case. A cost was imposed on the assessee for delaying proceedings due to not intimating address change.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and the need for the assessee to present their case. A cost was imposed on the assessee for delaying proceedings due to not intimating address change.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and the need for the assessee to present their case. A cost was imposed on the assessee for delaying proceedings due to not intimating address change.