ITAT Jaipur Judgments — April 2026

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present its case and supporting evidence for the cash deposits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted additional evidence. Considering the interests of substantial justice, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

The Tribunal restored the case to the AO, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present her case and evidence for the cash deposits. The assessee was cautioned to fully comply with the AO's directions.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issues of additions to the Assessing Officer for a denovo assessment. The assessee is to be provided a reasonable opportunity during the fresh proceedings.

The Tribunal found that the assessee's submissions regarding the difference between gross and net turnover, and the deduction of commission paid to retailers, required factual verification. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.

The Tribunal found the explanation and the meagre amount of the deposit justified. Therefore, the addition made by the lower authorities was ordered to be deleted.

The Tribunal held that TDS cannot be claimed as an application of income for charitable purposes as it is subject to refund. Regarding the interest income, the Tribunal upheld the addition but allowed the assessee to demonstrate that the difference is covered under Section 11 for application or accumulation.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO. The AO is directed to examine the assessee's contention regarding the non-receipt of notices and the disputed cash deposit, and pass a fresh assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the issue of disallowance for late deposit of PF and ESI was debatable and settled by the Supreme Court. Given the assessment year, it could not be said the assessee intentionally misrepresented facts, thus the penalty was not sustainable.

The Tribunal upheld the addition for estimated business profit at 3% of turnover, citing past history and judicial precedents. The addition for unexplained household expenses was allowed for statistical purposes. The addition for excess cash deposits was confirmed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently established the genuineness of the gift transactions and the source of funds from the donors. The AO's addition was not justified without irrefutable material to prove it was the assessee's own money routed back.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing Form 10DA, noting that it was filed before the return of income and that similar cases had allowed the deduction. The rejection of a subsequent application under Section 119(2)(b) was deemed irrelevant to the present appeal.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, including a sale deed and gift affidavits, explaining the source of cash deposits. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of these evidences.