BharatTax.net

ITA 279/NAG/2025 · 21/4/2026

The Tribunal held that Section 43CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, applies only to the transfer of tangible immovable property, specifically 'land or building or both'. TDRs are considered intangible development rights and do not fall within the ambit of this section. Therefore, the addition made by the AO based on the market value of TDRs was not sustainable.

ITA 738/CTK/2025 · 16/3/2026

The Tribunal held that the return filed by the assessee was in compliance with the ITAT's order for de novo assessment and should be treated as a return filed under Section 139(1) of the Act. Consequently, a notice under Section 143(2) was indeed required, and its absence vitiates the assessment. Regarding incriminating material, the Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. was applicable, and since no incriminating material was found, the assessment was rightly quashed.

ITA 737/CTK/2025 · 16/3/2026

The Tribunal held that the return filed pursuant to the Tribunal's direction was not an original return u/s 139, thus notice u/s 143(2) could not be issued. Regarding incriminating material, the Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. was not available at the time of original assessment and that legal issues can be raised at any point. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in quashing the assessment on the grounds of no incriminating material.

ITA 732/CTK/2025 · 16/3/2026

The Tribunal held that the return filed by the assessee was only for computation purposes due to the Tribunal's direction and not a return under Section 139, thus Section 143(2) notice was not applicable. Regarding incriminating material, the Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s finding, stating that the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. was applicable and there was no incriminating material for the assessment year.

ITA 734/CTK/2025 · 16/3/2026

The Tribunal held that the return filed post-ITAT direction was a computation sheet, not a return under Section 139, thus no Section 143(2) notice was required. However, it upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment due to the absence of incriminating material, as the *Abhisar Buildwell* principle, being a legal issue, applies retrospectively even to de novo assessments.

ITA 442/PAT/2024 · 26/2/2026

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition for undisclosed sales, agreeing that profit should be estimated on unaccounted purchases using the GP rate. The Tribunal also upheld the deletion of the expense disallowance, as estimation of income already accounted for this.

ITA 506/PAT/2025 · 27/3/2026

The Tribunal, considering the assessee's age and ill-health, condoned the 128-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The Tribunal found it appropriate to provide another opportunity to the assessee to present their case on merits.

ITA 332/PAT/2025 · 26/2/2026

The Tribunal held that additions made based on documents seized from a third party must be processed under Section 153C of the Act. Since the assessment proceedings were initiated under Section 153A, the additions were considered invalid. The Tribunal also found that the valuer appointed for stock valuation was not appropriately qualified.

ITA 98/PAT/2025 · 15/4/2026

ITA 284/PAT/2025 · 26/2/2026

The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of account and the subsequent addition by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) were incorrect. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had disclosed sales in its profit and loss account and that most suppliers had confirmed the transactions. The Tribunal found no specific defects in the assessee's books of account.

ITA 434/AHD/2026 · 21/4/2026

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide compliance before both the AO and CIT(A) despite multiple opportunities. However, considering the request for another opportunity, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the CIT(A) with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited by the assessee. The assessee was directed to make proper compliance before the CIT(A).

ITA 673/CHANDI/2025 · 15/4/2026

ITA 495/AHD/2026 · 21/4/2026

The Tribunal held that the original assessment order under section 147 r.w.s. 144 was set aside by the NFAC to the AO. Consequently, the subsequent rectification order under section 154 also became invalid and infructuous.

ITA 1142/CHANDI/2025 · 15/4/2026

ITA 875/CHANDI/2025 · 15/4/2026

ITA 834/IND/2025 · 17/4/2026

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order did not comply with the mandate of section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which requires the order to be in writing, stating the points for determination, the decision, and the reasons. The Tribunal also acknowledged the assessee's submission that non-prosecution was due to a bona fide reason and that the assessee was willing to make an effective representation.

ITA 872/IND/2025 · 17/4/2026

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. The Tribunal held that the dismissal of the first appeal by CIT(A) was against the mandate of natural justice and section 250(6) as it was an ex-parte order.

ITA 341/IND/2025 · 17/4/2026

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had booked a property with Sahara and sold the booking right to Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain, with Shri Mukesh Joshi acting as a broker. The assessee's initial representation that Shri Mukesh Joshi was the buyer was due to a misunderstanding. New evidence, including a confirmatory certificate from Sahara, supported this corrected version.

ITA 195/IND/2025 · 17/4/2026

The Tribunal held that the addition on account of unsecured loans was not justified as the loans were from previous years and not utilized for deposits in the current year, citing jurisdictional High Court precedent. Regarding the addition for unexplained cash deposits, both parties agreed to a remand for fresh adjudication.

ITA 375/IND/2025 · 17/4/2026

The Tribunal held that the impugned order of the CIT(A) needed to be set aside as both the assessee's AR and the Revenue's DR agreed that the cases of other co-owners, which are pending, should be heard together with the present case to maintain consistency. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.