Loading ITAT cases…
194 tribunal orders from the Varanasi bench in 2026.
Showing 40 of 194 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in restricting the adjudication of the appeal for AY 2010-11 solely to the issue of closing stock valuation. The Tribunal observed that while the ITAT's order for AY 2010-11 might not have explicitly detailed the reasons for restoration, the issues involved in AY 2009-10 were distinct from those in AY 2010-11. The use of the word "similarly" in the ITAT's order was interpreted as merely reflecting a similar approach to restoring the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, not limiting the scope to a specific issue. Consequently, the CIT(A) was obliged to consider all grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. Since the CIT(A) failed to do so, the matter was restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of all grounds of appeal in accordance with the law. The Tribunal explicitly noted that the method of valuation of closing stock was not an issue under consideration for AY 2010-11.
The Tribunal held that only those investments which actually yielded exempt income during the relevant previous year can be factored into the average value computation for Section 14A disallowances. This principle was supported by various High Court decisions, including Cargo Motors Private Limited vs. Dy. CIT (Delhi HC), Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-1, Kolkata v. M/s. Shalimar Pellet Feeds Ltd (Cal. HC), and CIT, Chennai vs. Shriram Ownership Trust (Madras HC). The Tribunal also referred to ITAT Special Bench decision in ACIT v. Vireet Investment (P.) Ltd. (Delhi ITAT SB). Consequently, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s confirmation of the disallowance based on the total investment portfolio was incorrect. Since the assessee had already suo motu disallowed Rs. 73,715 considering mutual funds that yielded dividend income, the additional disallowance of Rs. 2,14,98,928 was deleted. As the remaining grounds were consequential to this addition, they were rendered infructuous and dismissed. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal dismissed ITA No. 74/VNS/2025 (AY 2012-13) in limine due to a delay of over five years in filing the appeal, noting the absence of a death certificate to substantiate the reason for the delay. Regarding ITA No. 72/VNS/2025 (AY 2013-14), the Tribunal upheld the penalty under Section 271B. The Tribunal reasoned that Section 44AB mandates getting accounts audited and furnishing the report by the specified date. While Circular No. 03/2009 waives the condition of furnishing the audit report along with the return if the return is filed on time with relevant columns filled, in this case, no return was furnished at all before the due date. The assessee's inconsistent pleas, first blaming the counsel and then claiming income below taxable limits, did not absolve her from the obligation under Section 44AB. The Tribunal held that since the assessee neither furnished the audit report nor a return of income with filled columns before the due date, the penalty under Section 271B was leviable and rightly imposed by the AO. The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was vitiated in law. It noted that the assessee had, in its written submissions before the AO and in its computation of income for AY 2011-12, explicitly pointed out and added back the loss of Rs. 73,39,019/- on account of the sale of fixed assets. The AO, however, failed to take cognizance of this submission and the assessee's computation, proceeding to add back the amount again. The CIT(A) confirmed this action without observing that the assessee had already suo motu disallowed this amount. The Tribunal found that this led to a double addition of the same amount to the assessee's income. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 73,49,019/- was deleted. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that since the entire reopening was based on an incorrect appreciation of facts without recording any failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose material facts, the reopening was void ab initio. The addition and the imposition of tax at regular rates instead of MAT were quashed. The appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was engaged in an adventure in the nature of trade of construction and sale of flats, and therefore, the income should be assessed under the head 'income from business or profession'. The reasoning was based on analyzing the facts in light of the Supreme Court's parameters for determining the character of a transaction. Key factors considered were the construction of 12 flats, with two-thirds sold to unrelated parties, indicating an intention to exploit the property commercially. The fact that construction was funded by customer advances before completion further supported the intention to construct for sale, consistent with real estate developers. The Tribunal noted that even a single transaction can constitute an adventure in the nature of trade, as held in Commissioner Of Income Tax vs. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply Agency. Consequently, the assessee was not entitled to deduction under section 54. However, the proportionate cost of land and construction attributable to the sold flats would be deductible from the sale proceeds while computing taxable business income.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had failed to consider the submissions and documents filed by the assessee during the appellate proceedings. While the Revenue argued that this was due to the assessee not justifying the non-furnishing of documents before the Assessing Officer under Rule 46A, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order did not discuss this aspect. Instead, it appeared that the documents and explanations were simply not considered, as the order only made reference to the statement of facts and Form No. 35. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had issued notices to the assessee on 07.01.2021 and 23.09.2024 and was therefore bound to consider the submissions and documents furnished in response. The failure to do so rendered the CIT(A)'s order deficient and violative of the principles of natural justice. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for consideration of the explanations and documents filed by the assessee and to pass a fresh order. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's failure to produce books of accounts justified rejecting them, the AO's addition of the entire amount of alleged suppressed sales was not sustainable. The AO's computation started with the assessee's opening stock from audited accounts, and there was no allegation of undisclosed investment in the stock sold outside the books. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that only the profit element in such transactions could be added. Accordingly, the addition was confirmed to the extent of 2.32% of the allegedly suppressed sales, representing the profit element based on the GP rate adopted by the AO. The balance of the addition was deleted. Grounds 2 and 4 were dismissed as not pressed due to lack of arguments or material. Ground 3 was held partly allowed as the addition was substantially varied.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 were bad in law and void ab initio. The AO's belief of income escapement was formed mechanically without establishing a live, rational, or proximate connection between the information received from the search and the alleged escapement of income. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that material relied upon by the AO was not provided, and the response to the show cause notice was not considered. Furthermore, there was a variance between the show cause notice and the assessment order, which was not explained. On merits, the Tribunal found that the AO treated purchases as bogus but accepted sales figures without rejecting the books of account, violating the principle that to effect sales, purchases must be made. Adding purchases as bogus without considering the issue of non-availability of stock lacked foundation. The Tribunal also held that Section 69C could not be applied as the revenue failed to establish that an expenditure was incurred and the assessee could not prove it. The assessee had provided voluminous documents, including audited balance sheets, ledgers, bank statements, and inventory registers, which the AO did not comment adversely upon. The AO's selective discarding of purchases while accepting sales, closing stock, and bank payments indicated a flip-flop approach. Therefore, the additions made by the AO and sustained by the NFAC were not sustainable on merits and were liable to be deleted. The reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the AO under Section 40A(3) of the Act was not legally tenable because the AO did not bring any specific findings or point out specific violations, and the deeming provision of Section 40A(3) never came into operation as the AO lacked necessary details. The Tribunal affirmed the co-terminus powers of the CIT(A), stating that the CIT(A) could reject books of account under Section 145(3) and apply a net profit rate, even if the AO had incorrectly applied Section 40A(3). The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s approach of rejecting books of account and applying a 6% net profit rate on gross receipts could not be faulted, as the AO's invocation of Section 40A(3) had no legal foundation. Regarding Ground No. 4 concerning depreciation, no arguments were advanced by either party, and it was dismissed as not pressed. The appeal of the Department was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that for subsequent assessment years, the Revenue accepted similar bank deposits as belonging to the society, not the individual. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that for subsequent assessment years, the Revenue accepted similar bank deposits as belonging to the society, not the individual. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that for subsequent assessment years, the Revenue accepted similar bank deposits as belonging to the society, not the individual. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that for subsequent assessment years, the Revenue accepted similar bank deposits as belonging to the society, not the individual. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the NFAC, which had dismissed the appeal in limine due to delay. The Tribunal restored the file to the AO, directing that the assessee be given one more opportunity to present her case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the AO. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present her case with supporting evidence for the cash deposits.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the NFAC and restored the file to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present its case. The assessee was cautioned to comply with future directions.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to sufficient cause. It held that the Assessing Officer was obliged to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer when the assessee objected to the stamp duty valuation.
The Tribunal noted that the application was filed under the wrong section (80G(5)(ii) instead of 80G(5)(iii)). However, to provide relief, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to treat the application as filed under the correct section and decide accordingly.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The assessee is directed to furnish evidence to explain the cash deposits, which are claimed to be from the sale of Vodafone top-ups and recharge coupons.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to technical issues with the e-filing portal. It held that the CIT(Exemption) should have treated the application as filed under the correct section, given the assessee's existing 12A registration and the CIT's satisfaction with the assessee's activities.
The Tribunal noted that the incorrect email ID prevented the assessee from receiving notices. It held that restoring the matter to the AO for de novo assessment and deleting the penalty was in the interest of justice, allowing the assessee to present evidence.
The Tribunal found that the reasons provided for the delay, including the illness of the Chartered Accountant's mother and a medical emergency of the representative, warranted a fresh consideration. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's counsel's erroneous advice. It restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to provide evidence for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) and to explain the cash deposits.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not properly examine the books of accounts submitted by the assessee before treating the cash deposits as unexplained. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted due to subsequent compliance by the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) on liberal grounds, noting the assessee's claim of illness. The Tribunal found that the assessee, due to non-compliance and lack of awareness of notices, could not present facts to the AO or CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the incorrect email ID prevented the assessee from receiving notices. It held that restoring the matter to the AO for de novo assessment and deleting the penalty was in the interest of justice, allowing the assessee to present evidence.
The Tribunal restored the issue of unexplained cash deposits to the AO for fresh examination of the assessee's books. It directed the AO to consider the documentation for the gift from the father, finding it compelling. However, the addition for capital amount was upheld as the confirmations were found to be meaningless.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s deletion of sundry creditors under Section 68 and the partial deletion of business expenditure without sufficient evidence were not maintainable. However, considering the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 10(23B) and its past difficulties with electronic proceedings, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was directed to produce evidence to explain the cash deposits in their bank account related to their banking correspondent activities.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's circumstances. It restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee an opportunity to demonstrate that the bank deposits were from business turnover, rather than being unexplained money.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not properly examine the books of accounts submitted by the assessee before treating the cash deposits as unexplained. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination. The penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was deleted due to subsequent compliance by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits, even in the absence of the assessee. Granting one more opportunity to the assessee to explain the nature and source of the deposit would serve the interest of justice.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely for non-prosecution without adjudicating on the merits of the grounds raised, which included procedural irregularities in the reassessment proceedings and lack of opportunity. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The assessee is directed to provide documentation to explain the cash deposits from its Khadi and Village Industries business.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had inadvertently filed under the wrong section due to a typographical error. It was held that the matter should be restored to the CIT(Exemption) to consider the application as if it were filed under the correct section.
The Tribunal noted that the AO relied solely on initial SFT information which was later rectified. The assessee provided a sale deed and revised 26AS, which the AO did not have access to. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh consideration.
The CIT(A) deleted the additions after admitting additional evidence and obtaining a remand report. The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the transactions were indeed conducted by AOPs and the income was offered to tax in their hands, and that similar claims were accepted in other cases.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's lack of familiarity with e-proceedings. It restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment to allow the assessee to present evidence explaining the cash deposits.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh verification of the bank account ownership. The AO was directed to collect KYC documents from banks and verify PAN allotment details. Penalty proceedings were also remitted to the AO.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh verification of the bank account ownership. The AO was directed to collect KYC documents from banks and verify PAN allotment details. Penalty proceedings were also remitted to the AO.