ITAT Jaipur Judgments — July 2025

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeals deserved to be condoned and remanded the matters to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the assessee's age and the fact that she contacted multiple experts. On merit, the Tribunal held that the assessment order and the impugned order deserved to be set aside in view of the CBDT notification extending the leave encashment benefit limit to Rs. 25 lakhs with retrospective effect.

The Tribunal found that the confirmations from members were in the form of certificates and not affidavits, and that the CIT(A) did not call for a remand report. Considering the facts, the Tribunal deemed it fit to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for another opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a denovo assessment, allowing the assessee to furnish details and make submissions. Proper opportunity of hearing was directed to be granted.

The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and condoned the delay in the interest of natural justice. The grounds of appeal were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the quantum proceedings to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The penalty order was also set aside, with the Assessing Officer at liberty to proceed regarding penalty after the conclusion of the quantum proceedings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding that the notices were sent to a wrong email address. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the applications were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals after being satisfied that the notices were not sent to the correct email address. The impugned orders were set aside, and the applications were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee remained non-compliant before the CIT(A) but considered it fit to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision, providing an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that the Revenue department had initiated fresh proceedings under Section 148 of the Act. Considering this, the Tribunal found that the present appeal regarding the assessment under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153C had become infructuous.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had already been granted approval under Section 80G(5) and had a registration under Section 12. However, deficiencies in providing details regarding the genuineness of activities were observed. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the large cash deposit during demonetization was not substantiated by cogent evidence. The books of accounts, stock register, and cash book were found unreliable by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not point out specific deficiencies in the expenses. The CIT(A) had restricted the disallowance to 5%, but the Tribunal felt the entire addition should have been set aside, partly allowing the appeal.

The Tribunal noted that the impugned order was ex-parte due to the assessee not appearing. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the issues back to the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication.

The Tribunal held that an 8% net profit rate was not justified for a milk agency business earning commission. It estimated the net profit rate at 2.25% from the sale of milk, dairy products, and pulses, considering it fair to both parties.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 246 and 765 days, citing reasonable cause and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. The appeals were remitted to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals after considering the genuine hardships faced by the assessee due to her husband's ill health and their NRI status. The matter was remitted to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a valid registration under section 12A for the assessment years in question, as the initial registration was not cancelled and the subsequent application was withdrawn. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of exemption under section 11.

The Tribunal held that the assessee possessed a valid registration under Section 12A of the Act for the relevant assessment years. The Tribunal noted that the earlier registration was not cancelled and the subsequent application was withdrawn ignorantly. Consequently, the assessee was entitled to the benefit of exemption under Section 11.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's application for settlement under the Direct Taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and the submission of Form 4. The tribunal clarified that the assessee retains the liberty to apply for revival of the appeal if no settlement is ultimately reached between the parties.

The Tribunal noted that the contract receipt of Rs. 8,29,12,088/- was indeed disclosed in the financial statement for AY 2015-16 and the income offered to tax. Therefore, the AO should have either adjusted the TDS against the tax liability for AY 2015-16 or allowed the TDS claim for the year under consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a valid registration under Section 12A and had inadvertently applied for fresh registration which was later withdrawn. Therefore, the denial of exemption under Section 11 by the lower authorities was incorrect.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and presented copies of relevant forms. Therefore, the appeal and the application for condonation of delay were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the notices were not properly served on the assessee at the address provided in Form 35, as the assessee had not opted for service via email. Consequently, the impugned orders passed by the CIT(A) were set aside due to lack of proper service and opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 151 days, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to present their case.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee-appellant had applied for settlement under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and presented the necessary forms. The department had no objection to this submission.

The Tribunal held that the appeals were filed with a significant delay. While the assessee admitted service of the order on March 20, 2024, the department did not provide material evidence of service at the given address or by registered post. The notices were purportedly sent to an email address that the assessee had opted out of for service.

The Tribunal found that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was for a reasonable cause and condoned it. Since the CIT(A) had not dealt with the merits of the case, the appeals were remitted back for necessary adjudication, and allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal observed that the delay in filing the appeal before the First Appellate Authority was for a reasonable cause and condoned it. Since the CIT(A) had not dealt with the merits of the cases, the appeals were remitted back for necessary adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing the ill-health of the Executive President's wife as a reason for the inability to attend to tax matters. The impugned orders were set aside, and the applications were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh decision.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, allowing the applications for condonation. The impugned orders of the CIT(E) were set aside, and the applications were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh decision, affording the applicant another opportunity.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to establish the version of incidents claimed regarding the borrowed amount and the transaction of the plot. The grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.

The Tribunal observed that the Revenue's appeal was against the order of the CIT(A) who had allowed the assessee's appeal. After considering the circulars on filing appeals, the Tribunal found that none of the exceptions specified in the circulars were fulfilled in this case. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not provided with adequate opportunity of being heard by the CIT(E) and that the reasons for rejection were curable. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an opportunity to produce necessary documents.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 31,39,000/- under Section 69A was not justified as the cash deposits were explained and recorded in the books of accounts. The trading addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- was also found to be made on a hypothetical basis without specific default in the audited books.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting sufficient cause and merit in the assessee's application. The appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee to present their case and evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting sufficient cause and merit in the assessee's application. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the subsidy received was for establishing a new industrial unit and thus was a capital receipt, not taxable. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not justified.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was deprived of an opportunity to be heard by the CIT(A) due to incorrect email communication. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO to decide afresh, providing the assessee with another opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal restored the matter back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to produce all desired documents relating to incomplete Form 10AB and genuineness of activities.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 148 were illegal and bad in law. The additions made by the AO were not sustainable as the AO did not apply his own mind and relied on vague reasons. Furthermore, the additions were also not sustainable on merits.

The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and perused the records. It noted that the assessee's appeal was primarily on technical grounds regarding the AO's jurisdiction and on the merits of the additions made.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had partly allowed the assessee's appeal. The Tribunal, after considering the case laws and submissions, dismissed the revenue's appeal. The additions made by the AO were found to be based on assumptions and presumptions without sufficient corroborative evidence.