ITAT Amritsar Judgments — July 2026

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application without a show-cause notice was a procedural lapse. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) passed the order without affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with a chance to present their case on merits.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not issue a show-cause notice and that the assessee should be given another opportunity. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a decision on merits after providing a hearing.

The Tribunal held that there is no bar to commencing activities before obtaining registration. It restored the issue to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision, directing them to consider the trust's aims and objectives as per law.

The Tribunal found that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with a hearing on merit.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the matters to the file of the CIT(E) for a fresh decision on merits, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the matters to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the matters to the file of the CIT(E). The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to provide an opportunity of being heard and decide the issues on merit.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to provide an opportunity of being heard and decide the issues on merit.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issues on merit.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issues on merit.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that maintaining beneficiary registers for activities like langar and medicines distributed at camps organized by third parties is not practically feasible and not a legal requirement. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeals. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn.

The tribunal noted the assessee's request for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the withdrawal and dismissed the appeal.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have provided an opportunity of hearing before rejecting the application. The matter was restored back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that there is no bar in commencing activities before obtaining registration. The issue was restored to the CIT(E) for re-examination of the assessee's activities and to grant registration based on its aims and objectives as per law.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to provide an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issues on merit.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(E) to provide the assessees with another opportunity to be heard on merit. The CIT(E) was directed to verify the aims, objects, and genuineness of the institutions at the time of registration.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(E) to provide the assessees with another opportunity to be heard on merit. The CIT(E) was directed to verify the aims, objects, and genuineness of the institutions at the time of registration.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(E) to provide the assessees with another opportunity to be heard on merit. The CIT(E) was directed to verify the aims, objects, and genuineness of the institutions at the time of registration.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(E) to provide the assessees with another opportunity to be heard on merit. The CIT(E) was directed to verify the aims, objects, and genuineness of the institutions at the time of registration.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(E) to provide the assessees with another opportunity to be heard on merit. The CIT(E) was directed to verify the aims, objects, and genuineness of the institutions at the time of registration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits. The penalty appeal was also restored to the CIT(A) as it was consequential to the quantum appeal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits. The penalty appeal was also restored to the CIT(A) as it was consequential to the quantum appeal.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and directed the lower authority to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard on merits. The case was sent back for a fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The delay in filing was not addressed.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(E) to provide the assessees with another opportunity to be heard on merit. The CIT(E) was directed to verify the aims, objects, and genuineness of the institutions at the time of registration.

The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(E) to provide the assessees with another opportunity to be heard on merit. The CIT(E) was directed to verify the aims, objects, and genuineness of the institutions at the time of registration.

The Tribunal held that unrefunded student caution money is not taxable under Section 41(1) as it is neither a trading liability nor a business expense write-back. The addition of Rs. 56.95 lakhs was deleted, but the disallowance of excess interest paid to specified persons was upheld.