ITAT Jaipur Judgments — October 2025

The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO was not sustainable. The assessee had provided explanations and evidence for the cash deposits and expenses, which were not properly rejected by the AO. Furthermore, the approval under Section 153D was found to be mechanically granted without proper application of mind and thus vitiated the assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had successfully discharged the initial onus by providing identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditors. The repayment of the loan through banking channels was also established. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the additions were made without proper appreciation of facts and in disregard of legal principles, as the seized material was not found in the possession of the assessee and no direct nexus was established. The reliance on third-party documents without cogent link rendered the additions arbitrary and unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient non-interest bearing funds to cover investments and advances. Therefore, it was presumed that interest-bearing loans were used for interest-earning purposes, establishing a clear nexus. The disallowance of interest expenses was deemed unjustified.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's ground challenging the jurisdiction of the ITO was a primary issue. Relying on precedents, the Tribunal decided that the issue of jurisdiction must be decided first. The case was remanded back to the Tribunal for deciding the jurisdictional aspect.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's bona fide belief and consultant's lack of proper guidance. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) to decide afresh, providing the assessee with an opportunity to submit required documents.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without proper approval from the competent authority as required by Section 151, rendering the notice and subsequent assessment void. The assessee's cross-objection was allowed on this ground.

The Tribunal held that the additions were made without proper appreciation of facts and in disregard of legal principles. The reliance on third-party documents without establishing a nexus to the assessee was found to be unsustainable. The proceedings were also questioned on procedural grounds.

During the hearing, the assessee's Authorized Representative (AR) requested to withdraw the appeal, and the Departmental Representative (DR) had no objection. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's registration under Section 12AA of the Act was established by other evidence, including an 80G approval certificate and AO's acceptance in a previous assessment year. Therefore, denial of exemption solely for non-production of the 12AA certificate was incorrect. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had applied more than 85% of its income for charitable purposes.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) rightly followed the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services, which became binding. The powers of CIT(A) are coterminous with AO, and the orders merged, confirming the authorities' actions.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee one more opportunity to be heard. This decision was made to ensure the issue is decided on merits and not scuttled without a proper hearing, despite the assessee's failure to appear before the lower authorities.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting sufficient cause. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the legal heir, considering the written submissions.

The Tribunal restored both appeals to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide required documents and information, with an opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to provide the assessee with a sufficient opportunity to produce documents and information related to the pending applications.

The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, confirming that the exchange loss was not deductible under Section 57(iii) as the expenditure was incurred for securing permanent residency and not for the purpose of earning income. Consequently, the disallowance of the loss and the levy of interest under Section 234D were affirmed.

The Tribunal held that once the initial reason for reopening (cash deposits) was found to be explained and no addition was made on that score, the AO's jurisdiction to assess other escaped income (LTCG) that came to his notice subsequently, ceased. The Tribunal relied on the jurisdictional High Court's decision in Shri Ram Singh's case.

The tribunal observed that the DVO report has been pending for over 8 years, causing significant delay. The matter was restored to the AO to decide afresh after obtaining the DVO's valuation report, emphasizing that this decision does not reflect on the merits of the dispute.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee being a senior citizen and not well-versed with technology. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for a fresh decision, providing the assessee with one more opportunity to present her case and documents, emphasizing that the assessee should not seek frivolous adjournments.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the certified copy of the order obtained by the assessee as evidence of service date. The matter was then remanded to the AO to determine the turnover and charge tax as per presumptive taxation. Additions related to cash deposits and credit card payments were also to be decided by the AO on merits.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication by providing one more opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed to cooperate and not seek frivolous adjournments, and a cost of Rs. 2,000 was imposed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including an affidavit from the lender and bank statements, to substantiate the unsecured loan. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was condoned due to the demise of the assessee's father. The Tribunal further admitted an additional ground of appeal concerning the restriction of agricultural income. Finally, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the deletion of the addition sustained by the CIT(A) regarding unexplained cash deposits and accepting the agricultural income as disclosed.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While the CIT(A) confirmed the AO's additions, the Tribunal noted that the assessee was ex-parte before the lower authorities and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's medical condition and issues with notice service. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment, providing the assessee with another opportunity to present their case on merits.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P solely on the ground of belated filing of the return, especially when the claim was raised in a return filed under Section 148, was not justified. The Tribunal relied on various judicial precedents and circulars to allow the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue were defective and irrelevant to the facts of the case, rendering the appeals not maintainable. Although the appeals were dismissed on this technical ground, the Tribunal also decided the issue on merits, concurring with the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that the grounds raised by the Revenue were defective and irrelevant to the case, thus dismissing the appeals on maintainability. However, on merits, the Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s finding that the addition was incorrect as the plots were not owned by the assessee, the transaction was not materialized, and no payment was received.

The Tribunal noted that while the AO doubted the purchases, the sales were not disputed. The assessee claimed the deposits were from sales, and this was supported by sale bills. Given the established facts and judicial precedents, particularly concerning demonetization deposits and the onus on the assessee to prove genuineness, the Tribunal found that the sales proceeds, though deposited during the demonetization period, were sufficiently explained by the assessee's business activities. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not justified.

The Tribunal held that issuing a notice under Section 148A(b) to a deceased person, and then proceeding with assessment against the legal heir, is a violation of procedural law. Therefore, the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A) are liable to be set aside.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 jurisdiction was unsustainable as the Assessing Officer had conducted necessary verifications and the assessment orders were not erroneous or prejudicial to the revenue. Relying on Apex Court and High Court decisions, the Tribunal found that the twin conditions for exercising Section 263 powers were not met.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's invocation of Section 263 powers was unsustainable as the Assessing Officer had conducted necessary verification and the assessment orders were not erroneous or prejudicial to the Revenue. The cited judicial precedents supported this view.

The Tribunal held that expenses for constructing a boundary wall and mitti bharai were reasonable and supported by evidence and therefore allowable. However, expenses for security guards were not considered allowable. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly adjudicated all grounds and had made contradictory observations.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Act was mechanical, consolidated, and lacked due application of mind for each assessment year. Consequently, the assessment orders passed under Section 153C were quashed as invalid.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D for the assessment orders was mechanical, consolidated, and lacked due application of mind for each assessment year. Therefore, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act was mechanical and consolidated, without proper application of mind for each assessment year. This rendered the approval invalid, and consequently, the assessment orders were quashed.

The Tribunal observed that the Tally data was unreliable and contained errors, making it unsuitable for accurate income determination. The Tribunal also noted that the AO's estimation of income was arbitrary and not supported by cogent material, disregarding the assessee's audited accounts. The Tribunal allowed the technical ground regarding the validity of approvals under Section 153D, stating they were mechanically granted.

The Tribunal admitted an additional ground challenging the validity of the approval granted under Section 153D. It ruled that the approval was granted mechanically and in a consolidated manner for multiple assessment years without proper application of mind, rendering it invalid. Consequently, all assessment orders framed under Section 153C read with Section 153D for the relevant assessment years were quashed.

The Tribunal noted that the Tally data was not a reliable basis for assessment as it was preliminary, contained numerous errors, and was not properly maintained. Relying on various judicial precedents, the Tribunal held that additions based on such data without corroborative evidence could not be sustained.