ITAT Jaipur Judgments — June 2026

The Tribunal held that since the assessee's income was not taxable in India as per the DTAA, and this was accepted by the AO, the assessee was entitled to claim the TDS credit. The denial of TDS credit was against the law.

The Tribunal held that the machinery provision for computing the penalty amount under Section 271(1)(c) failed in this case because the assessed income was below the taxable limit, and therefore, no tax was sought to be evaded. Consequently, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10DA was procedural and that since the form was available before the intimation under Section 143(1) was made, the denial of deduction was incorrect. The Tribunal distinguished the Wipro Limited case as it dealt with exemption provisions, not deduction provisions.

The Tribunal held that the source of Rs. 5.30 lakhs from creditors was sufficiently explained with documentary evidence, and the AO's rejection was unjustified. It also found the Rs. 3.70 lakhs from personal savings to be justified, considering the assessee's agricultural and dairy income.

The Tribunal held that the bank statement, which was already with the AO, should not have been treated as additional evidence by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found that the FDRs, cash deposits, and interest income were explained by the assessee's past savings, sale of land, and agricultural income, which were duly disclosed.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were contributions from members for their mutual benefit and thus not taxable. However, the interest income earned on the bank account was confirmed as taxable.

The Tribunal held that the issue was squarely covered by previous ITAT decisions in similar cases involving the same company's shares. Following these precedents, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was invalid as it was framed under Section 143(3) instead of Section 153C of the Income Tax Act. Furthermore, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition of Rs. 6,68,313.25, finding that the assessee had discharged his onus regarding purchases from M/s SK Metals.

The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation corroborated by bank entries showing corresponding withdrawals. It directed deletion of the addition and restricted it to Rs. 1,60,304/-, representing estimated profits under Section 44AD, as admitted by the assessee.

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was invalid because no addition was made on the grounds for reopening. Consequently, a penalty under Section 270A could not be levied based on an invalid assessment order.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the disallowance of interest expenses, stating it was not in accordance with Section 40A(2)(b) as fair market value was not exceeded and the AO incorrectly treated it as notional income. However, the disallowance of late PF/ESI contributions and brokerage expenses were upheld due to failure to prove genuineness and excessiveness, respectively.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing sufficient cause and the interest of justice. It directed that the addition be restricted to the presumptive income rate prescribed under Section 44AD of the Act on the total cash deposits.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was invalidly framed because the AO failed to issue the mandatory notice under Section 143(2) after the assessee filed a return in response to the notice under Section 148. The AO's own admission in penalty proceedings confirmed the filing of the return.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation of withdrawing cash and keeping it due to habit and for security reasons was plausible. The Tribunal found no incongruity in the assessee's explanation and deleted the addition.

The Tribunal held that a technical error of filing under a wrong section, when the application was filed within the stipulated time and the genuineness of activities is not disputed, should not be a ground for rejection. The CIT(E) should have allowed rectification.

The Tribunal held that issuing a notice under Section 148 to a deceased person is legally invalid and all subsequent proceedings are void ab initio. The assumption of jurisdiction by the AO was not legally valid.

The Tribunal held that the AO's estimation of costs lacked basis and set aside those additions. For three assessees, the Tribunal allowed the Section 54F deduction, stating that investment within the prescribed time is sufficient even if unutilized amounts weren't deposited in the Capital Gains Account Scheme. For the fourth assessee, the Section 54F deduction was denied due to investment made beyond the statutory period.

The Tribunal held that the AO's estimation of costs lacked basis and set aside those additions. For three assessees, the Tribunal allowed the Section 54F deduction, stating that investment within the prescribed time is sufficient even if unutilized amounts weren't deposited in the Capital Gains Account Scheme. For the fourth assessee, the Section 54F deduction was denied due to investment made beyond the statutory period.

The Tribunal held that the AO's estimation of costs lacked basis and set aside those additions. For three assessees, the Tribunal allowed the Section 54F deduction, stating that investment within the prescribed time is sufficient even if unutilized amounts weren't deposited in the Capital Gains Account Scheme. For the fourth assessee, the Section 54F deduction was denied due to investment made beyond the statutory period.

The Tribunal held that the penalty was not sustainable as the surrender was only on account of the difference in valuation of closing stock, not on account of any excess stock found in quantity. Therefore, the surrendered amount did not qualify as undisclosed income for the purpose of Section 271AAB.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing sufficient cause due to the counsel's personal circumstances and the substantial nature of the additions made. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient explanation for the cash deposits, considering the small locality and the immediate utilization of funds to pay creditors. The affidavits, despite minor infirmities, should not have been outright rejected without further inquiry.

The Tribunal held that the AO's estimation of costs lacked basis and set aside those additions. For three assessees, the Tribunal allowed the Section 54F deduction, stating that investment within the prescribed time is sufficient even if unutilized amounts weren't deposited in the Capital Gains Account Scheme. For the fourth assessee, the Section 54F deduction was denied due to investment made beyond the statutory period.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's case was not covered by Explanation 3 to Section 271(1)(c) as the assessee had originally filed a return under Section 139. Therefore, the income declared in response to the Section 148 notice did not amount to concealment for penalty purposes.

The Tribunal held that even if TDS was wrongly deducted in the assessee's hands under Section 194Q, the assessee is entitled to the credit as the amount was deducted from their income and paid to the government. The CIT(A)'s denial of credit was not in accordance with law.

The Tribunal held that even if TDS was wrongly deducted in the assessee's hands under Section 194Q, the assessee is entitled to the credit as the amount was deducted from their income and paid to the government. The CIT(A)'s denial of credit was not in accordance with law.

The Tribunal found that the assessment order was passed without jurisdiction as it was issued in the name of a deceased person. The Tribunal also noted that the reassessment proceedings were initiated based on information regarding property sale and stamp duty value, but the details of the escaped income were not clearly ascertainable.

The Tribunal held that since the addition was made purely on an estimated basis without any finding of falsity in the assessee's explanation or proof of concealment, the penalty was not leviable. The defect in the penalty notice was also noted.

The Tribunal held that denial of exemption under Section 11 for late filing of Form 10B, when the form was available before the processing of the return under Section 143(1), is unjustified. The Tribunal directed that the exemption under Section 11 be granted.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in setting aside the assessment as the AO had already examined the documents and acknowledged the assessee's claims in the remand report. The Tribunal found no reason to restore the issue back to the AO.

The Tribunal held that the AO's approach of rejecting only the cash deposits during demonetization from alleged non-existent parties, while accepting other sales to the same parties, was illogical. A test check of a few parties could not be extended to all parties without further evidence.

The Tribunal held that the denial of rebate under Section 87A on taxes paid at special rates under Section 111A is not in accordance with law. Following various ITAT decisions, the assessee is eligible for the rebate.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it and directed the CIT(A) to condone the minor delay before him. The CIT(A) was further instructed to adjudicate the issues afresh after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the AO lost jurisdiction to make an addition on a different issue when the original reason for reopening was explained and no addition was made on that ground. Therefore, the addition made under Section 80P was not tenable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's lack of professional guidance and unawareness of procedures. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the source of cash deposits was duly explained. The deposit in Bank of Baroda was substantiated by prior withdrawals, and the deposit in YES Bank was explained by rental income and belonged to the assessee's HUF.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's lack of professional guidance and unawareness of procedures. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee. The solitary issue was whether the claim for deduction under Section 80P could be allowed when the return was filed in response to a Section 148 notice, and not under Section 139(1). The Tribunal noted that the assessment year under consideration is 2015-16, which is prior to the amendment brought into Section 80AC effective from 01.04.2018. The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Nileshwar Range Kallu Chethu Vyavasaya Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangham v CIT, which discussed the statutory provisions of Section 80A(5) and Section 80AC as they stood prior to 01.04.2018. The Court held that prior to this amendment, the statutory scheme admitted claims for deduction under Section 80P if made in a return filed by the assessee, which could be under Section 139(1), 139(4), 142(1), or 148, provided it was filed within the due date contemplated under those provisions. Crucially, for assessment years prior to the amendment, a return filed in response to a Section 148 notice was considered valid for claiming Section 80P deduction. Therefore, the Tribunal held that for AY 2015-16, the assessee was entitled to the deduction claimed under Section 80P in a return filed in response to the notice under Section 148. The grounds raised by the assessee were accepted, and the appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings under Section 153C were invalid because the AO received the relevant documents after the 'sunset clause' deadline of April 1, 2021. Therefore, the AO lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings under Section 153C were invalid because the AO received the relevant documents after the 'sunset clause' deadline of April 1, 2021. Therefore, the AO lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings under Section 153C were invalid because the AO received the relevant documents after the 'sunset clause' deadline of April 1, 2021. Therefore, the AO lacked jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO and partially sustained by the CIT(A) were based purely on conjectures, surmises, uncorroborated third-party digital data, and without affording the right of cross-examination. The Tribunal found force in the assessee's submissions that the AO failed to establish any trail of cash movement from the assessee or to the seller, and no evidence of unaccounted investments or unexplained expenditure was found. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in Andaman Timber Industries, holding that denying cross-examination of witnesses whose statements are the primary basis of assessment is a fatal flaw. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A)'s approach of sustaining the addition on a proportionate basis, relying solely on the seller's assessment, was fallacious, as there was no independent adjudication of cash payment by the assessee. The Tribunal further observed that the MOU dated 15.11.2017, which stipulated a consideration of Rs. 5,000/- per sq. mtr., was neither discussed nor controverted by the lower authorities. Consequently, in the absence of reliable evidence that cash exchanged hands over and above the sale consideration mentioned in the registered sale deed, the addition of Rs. 9,51,50,257/- confirmed by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147/148 was not barred by Section 153C as the information was not directly from seized documents of the searched person. However, the addition made by the AO was deleted for lack of proper application of mind and failure to consider the assessee's evidence.

The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO and partially sustained by the CIT(A) were based purely on conjectures, surmises, uncorroborated third-party digital data, and without affording the right of cross-examination. The Tribunal found force in the assessee's submissions that the AO failed to establish any trail of cash movement from the assessee or to the seller, and no evidence of unaccounted investments or unexplained expenditure was found. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in Andaman Timber Industries, holding that denying cross-examination of witnesses whose statements are the primary basis of assessment is a fatal flaw. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A)'s approach of sustaining the addition on a proportionate basis, relying solely on the seller's assessment, was fallacious, as there was no independent adjudication of cash payment by the assessee. The Tribunal further observed that the MOU dated 15.11.2017, which stipulated a consideration of Rs. 5,000/- per sq. mtr., was neither discussed nor controverted by the lower authorities. Consequently, in the absence of reliable evidence that cash exchanged hands over and above the sale consideration mentioned in the registered sale deed, the addition of Rs. 9,51,50,257/- confirmed by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Exemption) and restored the matters for fresh decision. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee to present its case and verify the new address.

The Tribunal condoned the one-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remitted back for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting additional evidence (cash book) submitted by the assessee. The matter was restored to the AO for de novo assessment to allow the assessee to produce and verify the evidence.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It reasoned that while the assessee might have violated RBI notifications, the cash deposits were not unexplained as they were against sales of petrol/diesel, and the source was sufficiently explained.

The Tribunal noted that the learned DR had no objection to the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Exemption) and restored the matters for fresh decision. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee to present its case and verify the new address.