BharatTax.net

ITA 528/AHD/2026 · 21/4/2026

The Tribunal held that the sale deed was declared void by the Civil Court due to fraud and non-payment of consideration. The Tribunal noted that no inquiry was made by the AO from the buyers, nor was any evidence produced for the receipt of sale consideration by the assessee. The mere pendency of an appeal before the High Court did not justify the addition, especially since the sale transaction was declared void.

ITA 2328/AHD/2025 · 21/4/2026

The Tribunal found merit in the Department's contention that the CIT(A) had not properly examined the facts regarding unsecured loans and capital introduction. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the CIT(A)'s reasoning about duplication of additions and the lack of proper verification of evidence for these amounts. The Tribunal restored these issues to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration.

ITA 2334/AHD/2025 · 21/4/2026

The Tribunal noted that addition under section 69A requires the assessee to be owner of unexplained money and fail to explain its source. After the assessee furnished evidence, the burden shifted to the AO to rebut. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) correctly held the time deposits to be explained on merits.

ITA 2462/AHD/2025 · 21/4/2026

The Tribunal held that the AO made the addition of Rs. 59,97,950/- mechanically without verifying facts or controverting the assessee's submissions. The CIT(A) had rightly noted that the assessment order lacked specific details about the transactions and supporting evidence, hence the addition was unsubstantiated.

ITA 81/AHD/2026 · 21/4/2026

The Tribunal found that disallowing the entire contract expense was not justified, as it led to taxing the entire contract receipt. The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission that no contract work was executed and the amount was not received, supported by bank statements. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for verification.

ITA 956/JODH/2024 · 26/2/2026

The Tribunal granted permission to the assessee to withdraw the appeal, as the assessee had received the requisite relief from the PCIT's order under Section 263 and the subsequent assessment order. The appeal was therefore dismissed as withdrawn.

ITA 600/JODH/2025 · 26/2/2026

The tribunal upheld the rejection of books of accounts and the estimation of gross profit. However, it restricted the gross profit addition by excluding the sales to M/s Milap Enterprises from the turnover for GP calculation, acknowledging that a separate addition was made for these bogus sales. The tribunal confirmed the addition for bogus sales and the commission paid on them.

ITA 826/JODH/2024 · 26/2/2026

The Tribunal found the JCIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the appeal on technical grounds and confirming the entire receipts as income. It held that the assessee's claim for allowing corresponding expenditure against receipts was justified. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to treat the assessee as an AOP and allow legitimate expenses after due verification.

ITA 303/JODH/2025 · 9/4/2026

The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeals. The learned DR had no objection to this request. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

ITA 302/JODH/2025 · 9/4/2026

The Tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the present appeals. The revenue did not object to this request. Therefore, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeals.

ITA 95/DDN/2026 · 15/4/2026

The tribunal condoned the 201-day delay, noting the assessee's illiteracy and incorrect email ID for notices. It found both the assessment and CIT(A) orders were ex-parte and violated principles of natural justice, thus restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment with a fresh opportunity for the assessee to be heard.

ITA 46/DDN/2026 · 15/4/2026

ITA 86/DDN/2026 · 15/4/2026

ITA 93/DDN/2026 · 15/4/2026

The ITAT, with the Revenue's consent, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The tribunal directed that the assessee be given an opportunity of being heard.

ITA 71/DDN/2026 · 17/4/2026

The Tribunal held that in the interest of substantive justice, the assessee deserved another chance to present the facts before the authorities below. Therefore, the ex parte orders passed by the CIT(A) were set aside.

ITA 485/PAN/2025 · 17/3/2026

The Tribunal, relying on various High Court judgments and coordinate bench decisions, held that interest income derived by a cooperative society from deposits with other cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). It set aside the CIT(A)'s order on this issue and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim for deduction, with the total aggregate claim including Section 80P(2)(d) deduction restricted to the original claim made under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).

ITA 140/PAN/2023 · 2/4/2026

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in sustaining the penalty without proper independent findings and overlooking the material evidence filed by the assessee. For AY 2011-12, it was held that the penalty under Section 271AAA was not applicable as the assessment year did not fall within the 'specified previous year' definition. Consequently, the penalty was set aside.

ITA 344/PAN/2017 · 2/4/2026

The Tribunal allowed the appeal concerning the DDT issue, holding that the assessee is entitled to restrict the tax rate on dividends distributed to its non-resident shareholder to the rate provided under the DTAA, following the Bombay High Court's decision in Colorcon Asia (P.) Ltd. For the management fees issue, the Tribunal restored the matter to the DRP for fresh adjudication, considering it similar to an earlier year's appeal that was restored.

ITA 488/PAN/2025 · 16/3/2026

The ITAT Panaji Bench dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, citing that the situs of the AO (Mumbai) falls outside its territorial jurisdiction. It granted leave to the assessee to file the appeal before the appropriate ITAT bench in Mumbai.

ITA 49/PAN/2026 · 1/4/2026

The Tribunal held that the addition related to renovation and interior decoration of the shop was beyond the scope of the Pr. CIT's directions and should be deleted. The Tribunal also found that the excess stock represented income generated from business activities and directed its deletion from additions. However, the Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's explanations regarding excess cash and dismissed that ground of appeal.