ITAT Jaipur Judgments — September 2025

The Tribunal found that the assessee needed an opportunity to be heard, despite her non-participation. It was noted that the Assessing Officer had not joined the husband in the proceedings and had not discussed the plea regarding household expenses supported by bank statements.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not justifiable as the legal heir faced genuine difficulties due to the assessee's sudden death and had eventually complied after a further opportunity. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had partly complied with the notices, negating the AO's claim of complete non-compliance.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's claim for expenses was not substantiated with evidence, a presumptive expenditure of 75% of the income should be allowed, taxing 25% as net income. Certain additions were sustained, while others were deleted.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's claim for expenses was not substantiated with evidence, a presumptive expenditure of 75% of the income should be allowed, taxing 25% as net income. Certain additions were sustained, while others were deleted.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's claim for expenses was not substantiated with evidence, a presumptive expenditure of 75% of the income should be allowed, taxing 25% as net income. Certain additions were sustained, while others were deleted.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's claim for expenses was not substantiated with evidence, a presumptive expenditure of 75% of the income should be allowed, taxing 25% as net income. Certain additions were sustained, while others were deleted.

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's additional ground, relying on judicial precedents that disallowances should not be made solely on an inspector's report without rejecting the assessee's books of account. The Tribunal found that the disallowances were based on appreciation of evidence and were pure findings of fact.

The Tribunal held that Section 194C was not attracted to the payments made to the trustees as 75% of the income collected from donations was to be divided among the trustee families as per a court-approved scheme. Therefore, no addition could be made for default or interest.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to partly allow the appeal, finding no illegality in restricting the addition. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide verifiable sales data and supporting documents, justifying the rejection of books of accounts and the need for estimation.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to partly allow the appeal, finding no illegality in restricting the addition. The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide verifiable sales data and supporting documents, justifying the rejection of books of accounts and the need for estimation.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's claim for expenses was not substantiated with evidence, a presumptive expenditure of 75% of the income should be allowed, taxing 25% as net income. Certain additions were sustained, while others were deleted.

The Tribunal held that Section 194C was not attracted to the payments made to the trustees as 75% of the income collected from donation boxes was to be divided among the trustee families as per a court-approved scheme. Therefore, no addition could be made by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's claim for expenses was not substantiated with evidence, a presumptive expenditure of 75% of the income should be allowed, taxing 25% as net income. Certain additions were sustained, while others were deleted.

The Tribunal held that Section 194C was not attracted to the payments made to the trustees as 75% of the income collected from donations was to be divided among the trustee families as per a court-approved scheme. Therefore, no addition could be made for default or interest.

The Tribunal held that Section 194C was not attracted to the payments made to the trustees as 75% of the income collected from donation boxes was to be divided among the trustee families as per a court-approved scheme. Therefore, no addition could be made by the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that the non-issuance of a statutory notice under Section 143(2) before completing the assessment is not a procedural irregularity but a fatal flaw, rendering the assessment invalid. The appeal was admitted after condoning a short delay.

The Tribunal held that the unsecured loans were sufficiently explained by the confirmations, ITRs, and TDS details provided by the creditors. Similarly, the capital introduction by partners was supported by evidence of prior withdrawals from the firm.

The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed by the assessee and subsequently withdrawn by the assessee via a withdrawal application. The bench allowed the withdrawal of the appeal.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO, providing the assessee one more opportunity to be heard, subject to a cost of Rs. 1,000/- to be deposited in the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund. The assessee is to cooperate and not seek frivolous adjournments.

The Tribunal found that the issue of late TDS deposit and subsequent interest levy needed proper adjudication. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.