ITAT Surat Judgments — May 2026

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without discussing merits. A cost was imposed on the assessee, and the matter was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that for the assessment year in question, the DVO had no power to reduce the Fair Market Value (FMV) adopted by the assessee based on a registered valuer's report. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not justified.

The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society on its investments held with another co-operative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The disallowance by the lower authorities was deemed incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the 'surviving time' as per the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the notice and all subsequent reassessment proceedings were quashed and set aside as invalid and without jurisdiction.

The assessee submitted letters to withdraw the appeals as they were no longer desirous of pursuing the matter. The Tribunal recorded this submission.

The Tribunal held that the notice for reopening the assessment was issued beyond the 'surviving time' as per Supreme Court judgments, rendering it invalid. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings and the consequential penalty were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the notice for reopening the assessment was issued beyond the 'surviving time' as per Supreme Court judgments, rendering it invalid. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings and the consequential penalty were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the notice for reopening the assessment was issued beyond the 'surviving time' as per Supreme Court judgments, making it invalid. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the notice for reopening the assessment was issued beyond the 'surviving time' as per Supreme Court judgments, making it invalid. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was beyond the 'surviving time' as per Supreme Court judgments, making the reassessment proceedings invalid. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued after the expiry of the limitation period prescribed under Section 149 of the Act. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings were deemed invalid and without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued after the expiry of the limitation period prescribed under Section 149 of the Act. Consequently, the reopening of the assessment and the entire reassessment proceedings were deemed invalid and without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) for AY 2015-16 was time-barred, following the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The assessee submitted letters to withdraw the appeals as they were no longer desirous of pursuing the matter. The Tribunal recorded this submission.

The Tribunal held that the belated filing of Form No. 67 is not fatal to the claim for FTC, as it is a directory requirement and not mandatory. The provisions of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) override the Act and Rules in this regard.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and directed the Assessing Officer to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to explain its case on merits, requiring the assessee to provide all necessary details.

The Tribunal held that while the entire cash deposit could not be treated as unexplained, a portion of it could be explained by past profits and savings. The addition was reduced, and the tax rate under Section 115BBE was also questioned.

The Tribunal held that the AO's approach of treating entire cash deposits as income without considering debit entries was incorrect. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-determine profit on cash deposits and ITS/26AS income by applying a 15% net profit rate.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's cash book was manipulated, a portion of the cash deposits (Rs. 16,00,000/-) could be considered explained, considering prior cash withdrawals and CBDT guidelines. The addition was restricted to Rs. 11,49,000/-. Furthermore, the addition was to be taxed under normal provisions and not under Section 115BBE.

The Tribunal held that the AO's approach of treating entire cash deposits as income without considering debit entries was incorrect. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-determine profit on cash deposits and ITS/26AS income by applying a 15% net profit rate.

The Tribunal held that Section 56(2)(x) applies to any immovable property, regardless of whether it is a capital asset. The DVO's valuation, which was accepted by the assessee, was upheld.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided explanations, including a cash book and contract entry details, which were not considered by the lower authorities. These explanations clarified the accounting inconsistencies.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in upholding the addition. The selective trading in specific scrips linked to manipulation, despite the appellant trading in many scrips, indicated the losses were not genuine.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that the Addl. CIT(A) had indeed sent notices to an email ID different from the one provided by the assessee in Form No. 35. As a result, the assessee could not make any compliance, and the matter was not adjudicated on merits by the Addl. CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the file of the Addl. CIT(A) with a direction to allow another opportunity to the assessee for making compliance. The Addl. CIT(A) was directed to send notices to the email ID mentioned in Form No. 35. The assessee was also directed to track notices on all communicated email IDs and the departmental portal and make due compliance. The issue regarding the addition under Section 50C was not decided on merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had not sent notices to the correct email ID, preventing the assessee from making compliance. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee's non-compliance was not entirely deliberate, it could not be fully attributed to the COVID period. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for proper adjudication after verifying the assessee's details.

The Tribunal found that the timing of the mutual fund redemption and the donation, along with other financial transactions, required further verification. The matter was therefore remanded back to the Assessing Officer for proper examination.

The Tribunal held that the details of bank accounts, policy premiums, and demand drafts provided by the assessee sufficiently explained the cash deposits. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice were not fully adhered to and granted the assessees one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(E). The matters were restored for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice were not fully adhered to and granted the assessees one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(E). The matters were restored for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice were not fully adhered to and granted the assessees one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(E). The matters were restored for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not sustainable in law, following the jurisdictional High Court's decisions. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had repaid the entire loans in subsequent years, which was not controverted by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not sustainable in law, following the jurisdictional High Court's decisions. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had repaid the entire loans in subsequent years, which was not controverted by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued beyond the 'surviving time' as per the directions of the Supreme Court in the Rajeev Bansal case. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were deemed invalid and without jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice was issued beyond the 'surviving time' as per Supreme Court directions, making it invalid. Consequently, the entire reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice were not fully adhered to and granted the assessees one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(E). The matters were restored for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that principles of natural justice were not fully adhered to and granted the assessees one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(E). The matters were restored for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not sustainable in law, following the jurisdictional High Court's decisions. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had repaid the entire loans in subsequent years, which was not controverted by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO were not sustainable in law, following the jurisdictional High Court's decisions. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had repaid the entire loans in subsequent years, which was not controverted by the Revenue.

The Tribunal held that since the unsecured loan was repaid in the subsequent assessment year, the addition under Section 68 was not sustainable. Following the jurisdictional High Court's precedent, the assessee could not be considered to have benefitted from an accommodation entry.

The Tribunal set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present additional evidence regarding the unsecured loans and investments.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000 for each assessment year. The CIT(A) was directed to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to present all necessary details and evidence.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities, directing the JAO to grant one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is to produce all relevant evidence to prove the source of the gift.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for a fresh hearing. A cost of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the assessee, payable to the Income Tax Department.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income by recording fictitious transactions and failing to disclose the true nature of its business. The penalty was upheld as the explanation offered was not bona fide.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for a fresh hearing. A cost of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the assessee, payable to the Income Tax Department.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income by recording fictitious transactions and failing to disclose the true nature of its business. The penalty was upheld as the explanation offered was not bona fide.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000 for each assessment year. The CIT(A) was directed to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to present all necessary details and evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income by engaging in non-genuine transactions, and the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was rightly levied. The CIT(A)'s order deleting the penalty was set aside.

The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000 for each assessment year. The CIT(A) was directed to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to present all necessary details and evidence.