ITAT Surat Judgments — April 2026

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient details of his cash flow, sales, and purchases, thereby establishing the source of the cash deposits. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was therefore not justifiable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 12.7% of the cash credit, considering it as profit on unexplained investment. The assessee's argument for a lower profit estimation was not accepted.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to verify the assessee's contentions and obtain a report from Land Revenue authorities regarding the land's distance from municipal limits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s dismissal for non-payment of taxes was incorrect as the addition itself was disputed. The Tribunal also found that the penalty for non-compliance was not leviable due to the assessee's lack of awareness of proceedings.

The Tribunal held that an addition cannot be made solely on the basis of an uncorroborated loose-sheet, especially when the third party has not confirmed the payment and the assessee has denied receiving it. The addition was therefore not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s dismissal for non-payment of taxes was incorrect as the addition itself was disputed. The Tribunal also found that the penalty for non-compliance was not leviable due to the assessee's lack of awareness of proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s dismissal for non-payment of disputed taxes was incorrect. The Tribunal also found that the penalty for non-compliance was not leviable as the assessee was unaware of the proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case before the AO. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the meagre quantum and business utilization of funds, the addition was restricted to 5% of the disputed amount.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had incorrectly observed that the assessee had not provided stock reconciliation statements and other relevant details. The Tribunal concluded that the cash deposits were explained by the assessee and the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable.

The Tribunal directed that the assessee be taxed at 5% on the undisclosed business turnover, considering the trade practices and specific facts of the case. The assessee's contention that Rozmels could not be taken into account was not accepted as they were aware of not maintaining books of accounts.

The Tribunal found that documentary evidence regarding redemption of a policy held by the assessee's husband, amounting to Rs. 4,02,967/-, was ignored by the lower authorities. Therefore, the addition to that extent was not justifiable.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were received by the assessee as gifts during her wedding from relatives and friends. The assessee had provided details of these gifts, establishing the source of the cash, and therefore, the addition could not be sustained.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 8% of the total credits, considering it as a reasonable estimate of income. The Revenue failed to provide cogent material to justify the addition of the entire amount.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to restrict the addition to 8% of the total credits, considering it a reasonable view. The Revenue failed to provide cogent material to justify adding the entire amount.

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal primarily on the grounds of limitation due to a significant delay in filing. Even on merits, the assessee failed to provide supporting evidence for the cash deposits before the lower authorities and the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that the presumption under Section 292C regarding documents found during a survey can only be drawn if a clear nexus between the documents and the assessee is established. In this case, the AO failed to establish such a nexus, and the basic details relied upon were not present in the seized material.

The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 69C for unexplained expenditure was not sustainable as the purchase itself was accepted. For the addition under Section 69A, it directed the Assessing Officer to estimate a Gross Profit of 2.5% due to lack of details.

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to restrict the addition to 8% of the total credits, considering it as a reasonable estimate of income. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's appeal for AY 2010-11 was partly allowed.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided evidence of purchase through banking channels, reflected in demat accounts, and sale through a recognized stock exchange with STT payment. The AO's addition was based on general investigation reports about penny stocks, and the CIT(A) had confirmed this without specific evidence linking the assessee to manipulation. The Tribunal found that the burden of proof was not discharged by the revenue.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide adequate documentary evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the long-term capital gains exemption claim. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were considered justified.

The Tribunal held that while the gross 'on-money' receipts could not be taxed entirely, the unexplained unsecured loans brought into the books, along with the modus operandi admitted by the partners, could not be ignored. The CIT(A)'s restriction of additions was upheld.

The Tribunal directed that the addition on account of unexplained bank credits be restricted to 8% profit. The issue of unexplained investment was restored to the AO for re-examination. The addition on account of deemed rental income was deleted. The addition for difference in receipts was also deleted to avoid double taxation.

The Tribunal held that while the gross 'on-money' receipts could not be taxed entirely, the unexplained unsecured loans brought into the books, along with the modus operandi admitted by the partners, could not be ignored. The CIT(A)'s restriction of additions was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide adequate documentary evidence to substantiate the genuineness of the long-term capital gains exemption claim. Therefore, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were considered justified.

The Tribunal held that while the gross 'on-money' receipts could not be taxed entirely, the unexplained unsecured loans brought into the books, along with the modus operandi admitted by the partners, could not be ignored. The CIT(A)'s restriction of additions was upheld.

The Tribunal held that if capital gains are accepted in the case of one co-owner, the revenue cannot dispute the same for another co-owner on identical issues. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was not justifiable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of purchases, as the parties from whom purchases were made did not confirm the transactions and failed to appear before the AO. The assessment order, even if mentioning Section 144, was considered valid due to the assessee's participation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of purchases, as the parties from whom purchases were made did not confirm the transactions and failed to appear before the AO. The assessment order, even if mentioning Section 144, was considered valid due to the assessee's participation.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were duly explained by the returned income of previous years, the opening cash balance, and the cash withdrawals. Therefore, no addition was warranted.

The Tribunal held that a commission of 0.35% would justify the profit earned by the assessee in the business of cheque discounting. The AO was directed to determine the profit at 0.35% on the cash deposit amount.

The Tribunal held that the amount received by the assessee was for job work and labor charges, supported by evidence and confirmed by the Settlement Commission. Therefore, the protective addition was not sustainable.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee failed to provide any explanation or documentation for the source of cash deposits and credit entries in her bank account. The assessee's claim that the amounts belonged to a third party was not substantiated.

The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 80JJAA was not allowable as the business was acquired by way of transfer or business reorganisation due to amalgamation. However, the judgment does not explicitly state the decision on Section 80IA deduction, implying it might have been allowed by the CIT(A) and not overturned by the Tribunal in this specific extract.

The Tribunal noted that the issue was covered by a previous order where the case was restored to the Assessing Officer to adjudicate afresh. The assessee was directed to move an appropriate application under Section 199 read with Rule 37BA for claiming TDS credit.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was engaged in the cheque discounting business and earning commission income, and declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order. The CIT(A) had confirmed a part of the addition as commission income and another part as embroidery job work income.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was engaged in the cheque discounting business and earning commission income, and declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order. The CIT(A) had confirmed a part of the addition as commission income and another part as embroidery job work income.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits to be acceptable. Therefore, the additions made under Section 69A were deemed not to be called for.

The Tribunal held that the deposits in the bank accounts were duly explained by the assessee. Therefore, no addition was warranted in the hands of the assessee.

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction of the business expenses of Rs. 8.62 lakhs, noting that the incurring of these expenses was not in dispute. The order was to be rectified accordingly.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot invoke Section 263 merely because he holds a different opinion from the AO, especially when the AO has made inquiries and adopted a possible legal view. The revisionary order was found to be bad in law as it disregarded settled judicial positions.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot determine under which section penalty proceedings should be initiated using its revisional power under Section 263. The assessment order cannot be deemed erroneous and prejudicial to revenue solely on the basis of incorrect penalty initiation.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer doubted the purchase without substantial finding and that the sale was not doubted. Therefore, adding 100% of the purchase amount as bogus was not justified. The Tribunal directed that the addition be restricted to an estimation of 8% profit on the total purchase.

The Tribunal held that the mere mention of a specific community does not negate that the trust is working for the general public at large, especially when the trust's objects and activities are charitable. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Ahmedabad Rana Caste Association, which states that a section of the public can be beneficiaries, and the common quality uniting them is impersonal.

The Tribunal held that Section 68 is not applicable as the amount was not credited in the assessee's books. It also noted that the sale deed clearly indicated payments were made over a long period, from 1990 to 2012, and the Assessing Officer did not make further inquiries. Therefore, the addition was not justifiable.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT cannot invoke Section 263 merely because he holds a different opinion from the AO, especially when the AO has made inquiries and adopted a possible legal view. The revisionary order was found to be bad in law as it disregarded settled judicial positions.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not violate principles of natural justice by admitting additional evidence without a remand report, as verification at the appellate stage is permissible. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) correctly deleted the additions related to unexplained credits and job work expenses after verifying the submitted documents.

The Tribunal held that the jurisdictional High Court's decision in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., which was binding at the time of assessment, favored the Revenue on this issue. Therefore, the assessee's appeal could not be sustained.

The Tribunal held that the interest on occupation charges was rightly claimed under Section 37(1) as the payment and settlement occurred in the assessment year under consideration. The CIT(A)'s finding to this effect was not interfered with.

The tribunal held that the opening cash on hand was sufficiently explained by the assessee by referring to the previous year's return. The gifts were considered genuine as details of the donor, who was the assessee's father, were provided, including bank statements and cash withdrawals. The addition for unexplained expenditure was a corollary to the cash on hand issue.