ITAT Surat Judgments — July 2026

The Tribunal held that the first and second provisos to Section 56(2)(x) were applicable as the sale consideration was paid by account payee cheques on or before the date of the agreement. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable.

The Tribunal held that since the loan was received through banking channels and repaid within the same financial year, the addition under Section 68 was unwarranted. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's precedent in a similar case.

The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment beyond four years without failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts and without tangible material is not permissible. Therefore, the reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Regarding the refund issue raised in the additional ground, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the AO to verify and grant the refund if legally admissible.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had established a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to a medical emergency. Since the assessee eventually replied to the show cause notice, the penalty was deemed unwarranted.

The Tribunal held that section 68 can only be invoked if the assessee maintains books of accounts, which is not mandatory under section 44AD. Following the Bombay High Court's decision, the Tribunal deleted the additions made by the AO.

The Tribunal set aside the appellate order to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal along with the pending appeal of the assessee's husband, where substantial additions were made. The assessee was given liberty to raise all grounds before the CIT(A).

The Tribunal held that the property sold was agricultural land, which is not a capital asset. Therefore, no capital gains arise on its sale. The Tribunal also noted that similar decisions were made in the cases of other co-owners.

The Tribunal held that the cost of land purchased prior to the transfer of the original asset constitutes part of the cost of the new residential house for the purpose of Section 54F. It was also held that exemption under Section 54F cannot be denied merely because the unutilized amount was not deposited in the Capital Gain Account Scheme before the due date, if the entire amount was actually invested within the prescribed period.

The Tribunal condoned a 11-day delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's business of commission income and the need for natural justice, the matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer with a cost of Rs. 5,000 imposed on the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was beyond the 'surviving time' as per Supreme Court directions in the Rajeev Bansal case, making it invalid. Consequently, the reassessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was beyond the 'surviving time' as per Supreme Court directions in the Rajeev Bansal case, making it invalid. Consequently, the reassessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148 dated 21.07.2022 was issued beyond the 'surviving time' as per Supreme Court directions in the Rajeev Bansal case, making it invalid. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 148 on 31.07.2022 was time-barred and invalid, as it was issued beyond the 'surviving time' as per Supreme Court directions. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the re-assessment proceedings were barred by limitation, following the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal and the Gujarat High Court's decision in Mayurkumar Babubhai Patel. The impugned assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was time-barred and therefore invalid, following the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the reassessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the re-assessment proceedings were barred by limitation, following the Supreme Court's decision in Rajeev Bansal and the Gujarat High Court's decision in Mayurkumar Babubhai Patel. The impugned assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) had not afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration after providing adequate opportunities.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) had not afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration after providing adequate opportunities.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s original order was based on entirely incorrect factual premises and that the subsequent rectification order was also not sustainable. The Tribunal set aside all earlier orders and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) had not afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration after providing adequate opportunities.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) had not afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration after providing adequate opportunities.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) had not afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration after providing adequate opportunities.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) had not afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration after providing adequate opportunities.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) had not afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration after providing adequate opportunities.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) had not afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration after providing adequate opportunities.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) had not afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration after providing adequate opportunities.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) had not afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration after providing adequate opportunities.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) had not afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration after providing adequate opportunities.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) had not afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration after providing adequate opportunities.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) had not afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration after providing adequate opportunities.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) had not afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration after providing adequate opportunities.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) had not afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration after providing adequate opportunities.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) had not afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration after providing adequate opportunities.

The Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's calculation for unexplained cash credit to be non-justifiable. The assessee had provided details of debtors and VAT returns, and the AO had not doubted the credit sales.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s original order was based on entirely incorrect factual premises and that the subsequent rectification order was also not sustainable. The Tribunal set aside all earlier orders and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s original order was based on entirely incorrect factual premises and that the subsequent rectification order was also not sustainable. The Tribunal set aside all earlier orders and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) had not afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration after providing reasonable opportunities.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) had not afforded sufficient opportunities to the assessees. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration after providing adequate opportunities.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was ex-parte and violated the principles of natural justice as the assessee was not afforded sufficient opportunity of being heard. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus to prove purchases, and the Revenue failed to provide contrary material to establish bogus purchases. The estimation of profit by the AO and CIT(A) was deemed unjustified and arbitrary.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus to prove purchases, and the Revenue failed to provide contrary material to establish bogus purchases. The estimation of profit by the AO and CIT(A) was deemed unjustified and arbitrary.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus to prove purchases, and the Revenue failed to provide contrary material to establish bogus purchases. The estimation of profit by the AO and CIT(A) was deemed unjustified and arbitrary.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 800 days, imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the assessee, and set aside the ex-parte assessment and appellate orders. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment with an opportunity for the assessee to present their case.

The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice and considering the ex-parte nature of previous proceedings, decided to set aside the lower authorities' orders. A cost of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the assessee, and the case was remanded to the AO for a fresh assessment.

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 for non-compliance.

The Tribunal held that the appeal against the rectification order should be adjudicated along with the main quantum appeal. The CIT(A) had correctly noted that the appeal should be confined to the issues arising from the rectification order, but the Tribunal decided to restore the matter for fresh adjudication to the CIT(A) along with the pending quantum appeal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the appellate order. The case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for the limited purpose of verifying if the sustained addition was accounted for in the assessee's books.

The Tribunal deleted the additions of Rs. 44,50,000 and Rs. 35,00,000, holding that the assessee had established the source and genuineness of the loans and share application money. The issue of unabsorbed depreciation was remanded for examination.

The Tribunal, noting that both the assessment and appellate orders were ex-parte, decided to set aside the lower authorities' orders in the interest of natural justice. A cost of Rs. 10,000/- was imposed on the assessee, and the case was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh hearing.