ITAT Chandigarh Judgments — August 2026

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) failed to provide a sufficient opportunity for the assessee to be heard and present evidence. Therefore, the matters were remanded back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the issues raised by the assessee regarding the inclusion of capital receipts and allowability of expenditure required detailed investigation and were debatable, thus not constituting a 'mistake apparent from the record' under Section 154. Therefore, rectification was not permissible.

The Tribunal found that the matter required verification of evidence and granted the assessee one final opportunity to substantiate their claims before the Assessing Officer. The impugned order was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that procedural requirements should not defeat substantive rights, especially when the assessee is otherwise eligible for exemption. The Tribunal noted that the due date for filing the return was extended by a CBDT circular, which was not examined by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for accepting loans in cash due to an unforeseen emergency, as provided under Section 273B. The penalty provisions are not automatic and require a demonstration of reasonable cause.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on borrowed satisfaction and lacked independent application of mind. Since the assessee demonstrably did not travel abroad, the premise of receiving a travel benefit was demolished, rendering the reassessment invalid.

The Tribunal held that the distinction between religious and charitable purposes depends on the predominant object of the institution, not merely the presence of religious practices. Incidental religious activities do not automatically make a charitable institution religious.

The Tribunal held that incurring expenditure on leased premises for maintaining and improving educational infrastructure is not a bar to registration. Such expenditure, if for charitable objects and properly accounted for, does not indicate diversion of funds or non-genuine activities.

The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and the assessee's status as a charitable trust, accepted the assessee's plea for a fresh opportunity. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and the assessee's status as a charitable trust, accepted the assessee's plea for a fresh opportunity. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the distinction between religious and charitable purposes depends on the predominant object of the institution, not merely the presence of religious practices. Incidental religious activities do not automatically make a charitable institution religious.

The Tribunal held that the distinction between religious and charitable purposes depends on the predominant object of the institution, not merely the presence of religious practices. Incidental religious activities do not automatically make a charitable institution religious.

The Tribunal held that the distinction between religious and charitable purposes depends on the predominant object of the institution, not merely the presence of religious practices. Incidental religious activities do not automatically make a charitable institution religious.

The Tribunal held that the distinction between religious and charitable purposes depends on the predominant object of the institution, not merely the presence of religious practices. Incidental religious activities do not automatically make a charitable institution religious.

The Tribunal held that the distinction between religious and charitable purposes depends on the predominant object of the institution, not merely the presence of religious practices. Incidental religious activities do not automatically make a charitable institution religious.

The Tribunal held that the distinction between religious and charitable purposes depends on the predominant object of the institution, not merely the presence of religious practices. Incidental religious activities do not automatically make a charitable institution religious.

The Tribunal held that the distinction between religious and charitable purposes depends on the predominant object of the institution, not merely the presence of religious practices. Incidental religious activities do not automatically make a charitable institution religious.

The Tribunal held that the distinction between religious and charitable purposes depends on the predominant object of the institution, not merely the presence of religious practices. Incidental religious activities do not automatically make a charitable institution religious.

The Tribunal held that the distinction between religious and charitable purposes depends on the predominant object of the institution, not merely the presence of religious practices. Incidental religious activities do not automatically make a charitable institution religious.

The Tribunal held that the distinction between religious and charitable purposes depends on the predominant object of the institution, not merely the presence of religious practices. Incidental religious activities do not automatically make a charitable institution religious.

The Tribunal held that the distinction between religious and charitable purposes depends on the predominant object of the institution, not merely the presence of religious practices. Incidental religious activities do not automatically make a charitable institution religious.

The Tribunal held that the distinction between religious and charitable purposes depends on the predominant object of the institution, not merely the presence of religious practices. Incidental religious activities do not automatically make a charitable institution religious.

The Tribunal held that the distinction between religious and charitable purposes depends on the predominant object of the institution, not merely the presence of religious practices. Incidental religious activities do not automatically make a charitable institution religious.

The Tribunal held that the distinction between religious and charitable purposes depends on the predominant object of the institution, not merely the presence of religious practices. Incidental religious activities do not automatically make a charitable institution religious.

The Tribunal held that the distinction between religious and charitable purposes depends on the predominant object of the institution, not merely the presence of religious practices. Incidental religious activities do not automatically make a charitable institution religious.

The Tribunal held that the distinction between religious and charitable purposes depends on the predominant object of the institution, not merely the presence of religious practices. Incidental religious activities do not automatically make a charitable institution religious.

The Tribunal held that the distinction between religious and charitable purposes depends on the predominant object of the institution, not merely the presence of religious practices. Incidental religious activities do not automatically make a charitable institution religious.

The Tribunal held that the distinction between religious and charitable purposes depends on the predominant object of the institution, not merely the presence of religious practices. Incidental religious activities do not automatically make a charitable institution religious.