ITAT Surat Judgments — July 2026

The Tribunal held that since the assessee has been granted approval under Section 80G, the matter should be remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication in light of this subsequent approval and other statutory conditions.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw its appeal as it had become infructuous. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw its appeal as it had become infructuous due to the filing of a subsequent, identical appeal.

The Tribunal found that the rejection was primarily due to non-compliance, but the assessee was given insufficient opportunities. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh consideration with adequate opportunities.

The Tribunal found the impugned order of the CIT(A) to be not meritorious and lacking in proper adjudication. Given the lack of opposition from the Revenue and the assessee's undertaking to cooperate, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A).

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and condoned the delay in filing the first appeal, remanding the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment. The assessee was directed to cooperate and pay a cost of Rs. 10,000.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's claim that notices were not properly served, which resulted in ex-parte orders from the lower authorities. The assessee also presented proof of replies filed on 04.09.2019, 23.09.2019, and 13.11.2019, and requested another opportunity to explain its case. Considering these submissions, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders passed by the lower authorities. The matter was remitted to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to produce all evidence in support of its case. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee must utilize this final opportunity to present necessary details and documents to the JAO for a decision on merits. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes. No specific issue was left undecided, as the entire matter was remitted for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, finding that the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations for the cash deposits and other credit entries in his bank accounts. The assessee's failure to cooperate and provide cogent evidence led to the confirmation of additions.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is a family trust created by a will and is the only trust declared by the deceased. Therefore, it falls under Proviso (ii) to Section 164(1) and should not be taxed at MMR.

The Tribunal held that the assessee is a family trust created by a will and is the only trust declared by the deceased. Therefore, it falls under Proviso (ii) to Section 164(1) and should not be taxed at MMR.

The Tribunal held that Section 194-IA, which mandates TDS on immovable property, specifically excludes agricultural land. Therefore, the primary obligation to deduct TDS did not arise. Consequently, Section 206AA for higher TDS rate was also not applicable, and the demand for short deduction and interest was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to consider the assessee's reasonable cause for not getting the books audited, especially since no additions were made in the reassessment. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271B was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had explained the source of the cash deposits by providing evidence of cash in hand, prior withdrawals, and sale of immovable property. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not justifiable.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after the outcome of the pending 12A/12AB registration application. The CIT(E) was also directed to examine other statutory conditions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. The assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the transactions, and the Assessing Officer failed to bring any material on record to prove otherwise.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matters for readjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide all necessary documents.

The Tribunal restored the issue of the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) to the CIT(A) for adjudication. It also restored the issue of merits to the CIT(A) for readjudication after seeking a remand report from the AO.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of unexplained expenditure, stating that the assessee failed to discharge its initial onus to prove the genuineness of the transactions. Consequently, the penalty was also confirmed.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to restore the issues back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. The assessee was directed to produce all relevant documents to substantiate the transactions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. The assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of the transactions, and the Assessing Officer failed to bring any material on record to prove otherwise.

The Tribunal restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh after affording the assessee an opportunity to produce relevant documents and evidence. The assessee is directed to produce all supporting evidence for their claim.

The Tribunal restored the issue of the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) to the CIT(A) for adjudication. It also restored the issue of merits to the CIT(A) for readjudication after seeking a remand report from the AO.

The Tribunal held that a revised return is required to claim additional TDS credit and that disallowances under Section 14A cannot be rectified under Section 154 if there is no mistake apparent from the record. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided reasonable explanations for the cash deposits, including past savings, gifts, and sale of personal items. The Assessing Officer failed to conduct further inquiry to disprove these explanations.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, finding no infirmity in the assessment order. The CIT(A) had confirmed the addition after considering the assessee's explanations and analyzing the deposits and withdrawals.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), stating that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal found it appropriate to restore the matter back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination. The assessee is directed to cooperate and submit all relevant details to substantiate the entries.

The Tribunal restored the issue of the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) to the CIT(A) for adjudication. It also restored the issue of merits to the CIT(A) for readjudication after seeking a remand report from the AO.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was acting as an agent and the entire receipts could not be treated as income. A portion of the addition was sustained based on the Madras High Court's decision.

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to re-examine the issue in light of the submissions made by the assessee and the documents produced through the paper book. The assessee is also directed to cooperate with the set-aside proceedings by providing all necessary documents and evidence. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's claim regarding the agricultural nature of the land and its location beyond municipal limits, as well as the issue of dishonoured cheques, required further verification. The Tribunal did not decide on the validity of the reopening or the capital gains addition but remanded the matter for a fresh adjudication. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had offered the excess stock as business income and paid taxes. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering the assessee's detailed submissions and allowing an opportunity to produce necessary documents.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without deciding on merits, especially when the delay was claimed to be bona fide. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on the substantive issues.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) decided the issue on merit without hearing the assessee due to non-compliance. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee another opportunity to present all relevant documents. The assessee was directed to produce documents without seeking adjournments to enable the AO to take a reasonable view.

The Tribunal restored the issue of the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) to the CIT(A) for adjudication. It also restored the issue of merits to the CIT(A) for readjudication after seeking a remand report from the AO.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, directing that the assessee be provided with adequate opportunity of being heard. This was done considering the CIT(A) had also remanded an issue for verification.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matters for readjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide all necessary documents.

The Tribunal held that a revised return is required to claim additional TDS credit and that disallowances under Section 14A cannot be rectified under Section 154 if there is no mistake apparent from the record. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.

The Tribunal found that the documents submitted by the assessee were not presented to the lower authorities. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-examination of these documents.

The Tribunal restored the issue of the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) to the CIT(A) for adjudication. It also restored the issue of merits to the CIT(A) for readjudication after seeking a remand report from the AO.

The Tribunal upheld the addition of unexplained expenditure, stating that the assessee failed to discharge its initial onus to prove the genuineness of the transactions. Consequently, the penalty was also confirmed.

The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case for a prior AY, which estimated net profit at 2% of total turnover. Therefore, the same net profit rate was applied for the impugned AY.

The Tribunal restored the issue of the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) to the CIT(A) for adjudication. It also restored the issue of merits to the CIT(A) for readjudication after seeking a remand report from the AO.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions. It found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence regarding the source of loans and cash, including explanations for opening balances and confirmation from parties involved in transactions.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding the 10% profit estimation on undisclosed bank account transactions reasonable. The addition based on the WhatsApp image was deleted by the CIT(A) due to lack of corroboration and link to the assessee.

The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for re-examination of documents submitted by the assessee, which were not produced before the AO. This was done in the interest of justice to determine the actual capital gain.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not properly considered the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee. The additions of Rs. 41,000/- and Rs. 5,66,490/- were deleted as the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to support the claims.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had explained the source of the cash deposit with documentary evidence, including past savings and cash withdrawals. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded by the AO were not sufficient for reopening the assessment. The addition made was on a different footing than the initial reasons for reopening, making the reassessment proceedings invalid.

The Tribunal held that the interest disallowance was not an excess claim under Section 57 of the Act. It further noted that the interest disallowance should be set off against the proprietary business income of the assessee's concern.