ITAT Jabalpur Judgments — March 2026

M/S KALPDHAM BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,SAGAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, SAGAR

ITA 36/JAB/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18Partly Allowed

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. This was due to the assessee not being given a reasonable opportunity to be heard by the lower authorities.

RAJMATA KAVITESHWARI DEVI,SATNA vs INCOMETAX OFFICER , SATNA

ITA 107/JAB/2024[2014-15]Status: Disposed12 Mar 2026AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was due to sufficient cause, and the CIT(A) erred in not condoning it. On merits, the Tribunal found that the addition was not clearly explained and lacked proper reasoning, thus restoring the issue to the AO for fresh reference to the DVO and a de novo assessment.

RAI SAHAB BHAIYALAL DUBEY EDUCATIONAL AND MEDICAL CHARITABLE TRUST,JABALPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION), JABALPUR

ITA 186/JAB/2024[2020-21]Status: Disposed10 Mar 2026AY 2020-21Remanded

The Tribunal held that the denial of exemption under Section 143(1) was not permissible as it involved a debatable issue. The Tribunal noted that Form 10B was available at the time of processing and directed the Assessing Officer to reconsider the claim.

BASANT LAL GUPTA,SIDHI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , REWA

ITA 132/JAB/2024[2010-11]Status: Disposed6 Mar 2026AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing appeals. It directed the AO to recompute the assessee's income by applying a net profit rate of 12% on the turnover of Rs. 10,67,337. The penalty issue under Section 271(1)(c) was also restored to the AO to be decided based on the recomputed income.

BASANT LAL GUPTA,SIDHI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, , REWA

ITA 129/JAB/2024[2010-11]Status: Disposed6 Mar 2026AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing appeals. It directed the AO to recompute the assessee's income by applying a net profit rate of 12% on the turnover of Rs. 10,67,337, as agreed by both parties. The penalty issue under Section 271(1)(c) was also restored to the AO for reconsideration based on the revised income.

KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI,NARSINGPUR vs ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

ITA 148/JAB/2024[2014-15]Status: Disposed6 Mar 2026AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded both appeals back to the Assessing Officer. The tribunal directed the AO to pass de novo orders after proper factual verification and providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard, as the issues required further examination.

KRIPAL SINGH RAJPUT,SAGAR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, SAGAR

ITA 88/JAB/2024[2012-13]Status: Disposed6 Mar 2026AY 2012-13Partly Allowed

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. This was due to the assessment and appellate orders being passed ex parte without providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI ,NARSINGPUR vs ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, CIRCLE 2(1), JABALPUR

ITA 149/JAB/2024[2014-15]Status: Disposed6 Mar 2026AY 2014-15Partly Allowed

The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded all disputed issues back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. This decision was based on the need for further factual verification, especially regarding the assessee's claim of income exemption and the applicability of disallowance sections.

RENU SAMAIYA,JABALPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2), JABALPUR

ITA 36/JAB/2024[2011-12]Status: Disposed6 Mar 2026AY 2011-12Partly Allowed

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. This was due to the assessee not receiving a reasonable opportunity during the previous proceedings, with directions to provide such opportunity.

AAKASH KHATEEK,TIKAMGARH vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, TIKAMGARH

ITA 69/JAB/2024[2012-13]Status: Disposed6 Mar 2026AY 2012-13Remanded

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee before passing a fresh order.

SATYA PAL DARYANI,JABALPUR vs INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD 2(2), JABALPUR

ITA 92/JAB/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed6 Mar 2026AY 2015-16Partly Allowed

The ITAT set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues back to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to pass a de novo assessment order after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity, as the original addition was based on a report from irrelevant financial years.

BASANT LAL GUPTA,SIDHI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , REWA

ITA 131/JAB/2024[2010-11]Status: Disposed6 Mar 2026AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing appeals. It directed the AO to recompute the assessee's income by applying a net profit rate of 12% on the turnover of Rs. 10,67,337. The penalty issue under Section 271(1)(c) was restored to the AO to be decided based on the recomputed income.

BASANT LAL GUPTA,SIDHI vs INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 , REWA

ITA 130/JAB/2024[2010-11]Status: Disposed6 Mar 2026AY 2010-11Partly Allowed

The ITAT condoned the delay in filing appeals. It directed the AO to recompute the assessee's income by applying a net profit rate of 12% on the turnover of Rs. 10,67,337. The penalty issue under Section 271(1)(c) was also restored to the AO to be decided based on the recomputed income.