ITAT Varanasi Judgments — July 2026

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's books of accounts were corrupted. However, the AO had not disputed the sales made by the assessee. Notices issued to the suppliers under Section 133(6) were returned unserved or with remarks like 'Not Known'. The Tribunal, relying on the Gujarat High Court's decision in Bholanath Paper House (P) Ltd. and a coordinate bench decision, held that in cases of alleged bogus purchases, only the profit element embedded in such purchases should be taxed, not the entire amount. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to estimate a net profit of 12.5% on the total purchases made from the identified parties. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the Departmental Representative relied on the lower authorities' orders. No material was presented to persuade interference with the CIT(A)'s order. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order and restored the matter back to the CIT(Exemption)'s file. The CIT(Exemption) is directed to pass a de novo order after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal held that delay in filing Form 10AB is a directory condition and not mandatory, and such delays should be condoned if sufficient cause is shown. The reasons provided by the assessee for the delay were considered sufficient.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the notice under section 148 was barred by limitation. It was held that the period of limitation under section 149, even with the exclusion provided by the third proviso, had expired before the notice was issued.

The Tribunal found the assessee's claim of a typographical error plausible and that an assessee should not suffer due to a hyper-technical approach. The matter was set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the substantial expansion condition was met in AY 2008-09, making the assessee eligible for deduction under Section 80IC from that year onwards.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the substantial expansion condition was met in AY 2008-09, making the assessee eligible for deduction under Section 80IC from that year onwards.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an opportunity to explain the delay. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the first appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits after condoning the delay.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10AB is a procedural matter and not fatal to the application, especially when there is no malafide intent. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents stating that procedural rules are subservient to substantial justice.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not involved in the process of passing the order and agreed with the assessee's contention that an opportunity of being heard was denied. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the substantial expansion condition was met in AY 2008-09, making the assessee eligible for deduction under Section 80IC from that year onwards.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the substantial expansion condition was met in AY 2008-09 and that the assessee was eligible for deduction under Section 80IC from that initial year onwards.