Loading ITAT cases…
14 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had brought to its notice an order of the CIT(A) dated 29.10.2025 for Assessment Year 2013-14, wherein the CIT(A) had deleted entire additions made by the AO on the same ground. This deletion was based on the finding that the allegation of clandestine removal of finished goods, as recorded by the Central Excise Authorities, was not sustainable before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The CESTAT's decision, cited by the CIT(A) in its order for AY 2013-14, had found no evidence of purchase of raw material or flow back of money, and no cash seizure or major discrepancies during stock-taking. The CESTAT had also dealt with allegations of clandestine removal based on discrepancies in GRs and invoices, ultimately finding that the discrepancies were due to typographical errors and not indicative of clandestine removal. Since the main allegation of clandestine sales was not sustained before the CESTAT, the Tribunal held that there was no reason for the Ld. CIT(A) to confirm the additions made by the AO. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) had no legs to stand and deserved to be deleted. The appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 54,27,653 on account of unexplained investment in land was not justified. The assessee had fully established the source of investment in the purchase of land by producing detailed evidence before the Tribunal, including loan confirmations, lender statements, and landholding details. Therefore, this addition was deleted. Regarding the trading addition of Rs. 2,31,451, the Tribunal found that it was made on an estimated basis without pointing out any specific defect in the regularly maintained books of account. Consequently, this addition could not be sustained and was also deleted. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal followed the decisions of the ITAT and the Rajasthan High Court, which held that the assessee qualified for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) as an educational institution. The court's prior ruling established the assessee as an educational institution existing solely for education.
The Tribunal followed the decisions of the ITAT and the Rajasthan High Court, which held that the assessee qualified for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) as an educational institution. The court's prior ruling established the assessee as an educational institution existing solely for education.
The Tribunal followed the decisions of the ITAT and the Rajasthan High Court, which held that the assessee qualified for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) as an educational institution. The court's prior ruling established the assessee as an educational institution existing solely for education.
The Tribunal followed the decisions of the ITAT and the Rajasthan High Court, which held that the assessee qualified for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) as an educational institution. The court's prior ruling established the assessee as an educational institution existing solely for education.
The Tribunal followed the decisions of the ITAT and the Rajasthan High Court, which held that the assessee qualified for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) as an educational institution. The court's prior ruling established the assessee as an educational institution existing solely for education.
The Tribunal followed the decisions of the ITAT and the Rajasthan High Court, which held that the assessee qualified for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) as an educational institution. The court's prior ruling established the assessee as an educational institution existing solely for education.
The Tribunal followed the decisions of the ITAT and the Rajasthan High Court, which held that the assessee qualified for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) as an educational institution. The court's prior ruling established the assessee as an educational institution existing solely for education.
The Tribunal followed the decisions of the ITAT and the Rajasthan High Court, which held that the assessee qualified for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) as an educational institution. The court's prior ruling established the assessee as an educational institution existing solely for education.
The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings u/s 147 and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act based on information regarding unaccounted cash loans and interest. The assessee challenged this, arguing that Section 153C should have been invoked as the seized documents belonged to a third party. The CIT(A) quashed the proceedings, relying on the Rajasthan High Court's decision in DB Civil Writ Petition No. 18363/2019, which held that Section 153C has an overriding effect over Section 148 in such cases.
The ITAT held that the issue was squarely covered by its previous decisions in the assessee's own case, which had relied on a Rajasthan High Court ruling. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the claim of exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) for the assessment years in question. The cross objections filed by the assessee regarding the validity of reopening were dismissed as academic.
The Tribunal followed the decisions of the ITAT and the Rajasthan High Court, which held that the assessee qualified for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiab) as an educational institution. The court's prior ruling established the assessee as an educational institution existing solely for education.
The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings u/s 147 and issued notice u/s 148 of the Act based on information regarding unaccounted cash loans and interest. The assessee challenged this, arguing that Section 153C should have been invoked as the seized documents belonged to a third party. The CIT(A) quashed the proceedings, relying on the Rajasthan High Court's decision in DB Civil Writ Petition No. 18363/2019, which held that Section 153C has an overriding effect over Section 148 in such cases.