ITAT Surat Judgments — June 2026

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons provided to be sufficient. The Tribunal deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer, allowing the assessee's appeal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and the ITAT, considering the mitigating circumstances. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order due to violation of natural justice and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that using documents against an assessee without providing them for rebuttal violates the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It held that the Assessing Officer's failure to provide an opportunity for cross-examination violated principles of natural justice and quashed the reassessment order.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee had submitted some documentary evidence, certain submissions were self-serving. It directed the Assessing Officer to make an addition of 5% of the disputed amount as net profit, considering the inconsistencies in the evidence, and to tax it at normal rates, not under Section 115BBE.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal was restored to the CIT(A) and agreed with the assessee's request. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was remitted back for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by the jurisdictional High Court and co-ordinate benches, which allowed for a Gross Profit (GP) estimation of 2.5% in similar cases. Consequently, the additions were restricted to this rate.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by the jurisdictional High Court and co-ordinate benches, which allowed for a Gross Profit (GP) estimation of 2.5% in similar cases. Consequently, the additions were restricted to this rate.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by the jurisdictional High Court and co-ordinate benches, which allowed for a Gross Profit (GP) estimation of 2.5% in similar cases. Consequently, the additions were restricted to this rate.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by the jurisdictional High Court and co-ordinate benches, which allowed for a Gross Profit (GP) estimation of 2.5% in similar cases. Consequently, the additions were restricted to this rate.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by the jurisdictional High Court and co-ordinate benches, which allowed for a Gross Profit (GP) estimation of 2.5% in similar cases. Consequently, the additions were restricted to this rate.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by the jurisdictional High Court and co-ordinate benches, which allowed for a Gross Profit (GP) estimation of 2.5% in similar cases. Consequently, the additions were restricted to this rate.

The Tribunal held that interest earned by a cooperative society from deposits with another cooperative bank is allowable as a deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Assessing Officer had made sufficient inquiry and taken a plausible view, thus the revisionary order under Section 263 was quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause and the principle of substantial justice. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication as the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and non-speaking, and the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals, citing the principle of substantial justice and the fact that the assessee should not be penalized for the mistakes of their tax consultant. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication due to an ex-parte and non-speaking order from the CIT(A).

The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons provided to be sufficient cause. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte and non-speaking order, violating principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal held that the AO erred by making additions on items different from those stated in the reasons for reopening the assessment without issuing a fresh notice. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte and non-speaking order without affording sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 5,50,000/- should be deleted as the bank account belonged to the assessee's wife and she provided necessary documents. The Tribunal also deleted the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- as the assessee provided sufficient documentary evidence of past savings.

The Tribunal held that the issue was covered by the jurisdictional High Court and co-ordinate benches, which allowed for a Gross Profit (GP) estimation of 2.5% in similar cases. Consequently, the additions were restricted to this rate.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and non-speaking, and that the assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that interest earned by a cooperative society from deposits with another cooperative bank is allowable as a deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Assessing Officer had made sufficient inquiry and taken a plausible view, thus the revisionary order under Section 263 was quashed.