ITAT Jaipur Judgments — July 2026

The Tribunal held that credit for TDS is to be given for the assessment year in which the income is assessable. Since the assessee had returned the salary income for January and February 2012 in AY 2012-13, the TDS credit should be granted for that assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the bank's statement confirming the last locker operation date as 23.04.2019 was a reliable third-party document. Therefore, the cash found could not be attributed as unexplained money of the assessee for the impugned assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was incorrect in classifying the society's activities as commercial. It stated that the genuineness of activities is tested during assessment proceedings, not at the time of granting registration. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on delay without condoning it. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the delay, citing her status as a lady without professional guidance during reassessment and appeal filing, to be a sufficient cause, especially considering her status as a small taxpayer with no prior assessment history. The Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits. On merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficiently explained and substantiated the source of investment of Rs. 17,11,000 and Rs. 2,78,490, directing deletion of the addition of Rs. 19,89,490 made under Section 69. Regarding the addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b), the Tribunal noted that the AO had referred the matter to the DVO but no report was received. The Tribunal held that the AO erred in treating the DLC as the fair market value without awaiting the DVO's report or pointing out discrepancies in the assessee's explanation, and directed deletion of the addition of Rs. 9,13,035. The additional ground challenging the validity of the assessment was kept open. The appeal was allowed on merits.

The ITAT noted that the jurisdictional High Court's decision relied upon by the CIT(A) was set aside by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the ITAT restored the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh decision after the High Court's decision.

The Tribunal held that the AO loses jurisdiction to frame an assessment under Section 147 if the original reason for reopening is found to be non-existent. Since the AO made no addition on account of the cash deposit, the assessment order was invalid.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the documents produced, set aside the lower authorities' orders. The AO was directed to provide one more opportunity for hearing and to pass an order on merits after the assessee files necessary details.

The Tribunal set aside the rejection order and directed the CIT(E) to reconsider the application for 80G(5) registration. The assessee was granted registration under Section 12AB.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was incorrect in classifying the society's activities as commercial. It stated that the genuineness of activities is tested during assessment proceedings, not at the time of granting registration. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders.

The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without ensuring proper service of hearing notices and without verifying the status of the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme application. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's grounds of appeal raised valid points regarding the CIT(A)'s power to dismiss for non-prosecution and the procedure for dismissing an appeal as infructuous under the DTVSV Act. The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) did not follow the correct procedure. Therefore, the appellate order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside. The Tribunal directed the Ld. CIT(A) to pass orders on merits after providing the assessee with a due opportunity of hearing. The appeal was treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal held that the authorities below erred in treating the cash deposit as unexplained. The Tribunal found that the bank deposits, coinciding with harvesting seasons and accompanied by withdrawals for agricultural expenses, sufficiently corroborated the assessee's explanation.

The Tribunal held that there is no express bar in Section 87A or Section 111A to deny rebate on STCG. The prospective amendment in the Finance Bill 2025 further supports that no such restriction was in force for the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the rebate.

The Tribunal held that Section 87A, as it stood for the relevant assessment year, did not exclude income taxable at special rates like STCG from the rebate calculation. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to the rebate.

The Tribunal held that there is no express bar in Section 87A or Section 111A to deny rebate on STCG for AY 2024-25. The denial by CPC was based on system logic, not statutory mandate, and the CIT(A)'s order was upheld.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(E) and granted one more opportunity for hearing to the assessee. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee for each appeal.

The Tribunal held that the MMR is not applicable to charitable trusts not registered under Section 12AB, and tax should be computed at normal rates applicable to an AOP. The levy of tax at MMR was set aside.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the CIT(E) and granted one more opportunity for hearing to the assessee. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee for each appeal.

The Tribunal held that the Valuation Officer incorrectly equated the stamp duty value with the fair market value. It also noted that the assessee's contentions regarding the property's low fair market value due to its nature and location, and comparable sale instances, were ignored.

The Tribunal held that the authorities below were not justified in treating the cash deposit as unexplained. Given the assessee's declared business turnover and accepted income under Section 44AD, the cash deposit could be attributed to his business, especially as he was not legally required to maintain audited books of accounts.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) should have issued a show cause notice before rejecting the application. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to explain the genuineness of its activities and prove they are for the public benefit.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) should have issued a show cause notice before rejecting the application. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with an opportunity to explain the genuineness of its activities and prove they are for the public benefit.

The Tribunal held that while filing the audit report is mandatory, the stage of filing is procedural. Since the audit report was available with the AO before the assessment, it should have been considered. The appeal related to the delayed filing of the first appeal was dismissed, but the appeal challenging the denial of exemption was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the sales in question had already been disclosed as part of the gross turnover and subjected to taxation in the preceding assessment years. Therefore, the same amounts could not be taxed again.

The Tribunal held that the sales in question had already been disclosed as part of the gross turnover and subjected to taxation in the preceding assessment years. Therefore, the same amounts could not be taxed again.

The Tribunal found negligence on the part of the assessee at the appellate stage and imposed a cost. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that while filing the audit report is mandatory, the stage of filing is procedural. Since the audit report was available with the AO before the assessment, it should have been considered. The appeal related to the delayed filing of the first appeal was dismissed, but the appeal challenging the denial of exemption was allowed.

The Tribunal held that since the GST appellate authorities found no evidence of suppressed sales or clandestine removal of goods, the addition made by the AO based on that information was unsustainable and deleted the addition.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in shifting the burden of proof to the assessee and failed to verify the facts regarding the non-service of the notice. Consequently, the assessment framed under Section 147 was held to be without jurisdiction and invalid.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in denying the capitalization of interest as the deduction under Section 24(b) was claimed for a different property. Regarding the boundary wall, the Tribunal found evidence of its construction but not the year, hence allowing a restricted claim for cost of improvement.

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 30,36,075/- for share sale was not sustainable as the assessee had disclosed the profits. The addition of Rs. 28,35,000/- for fictitious profits was also deleted due to lack of specific information from the Revenue.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had set aside the assessment, rendering the appeal infructuous. The Revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not sustainable in law. The primary issue was the applicability of Section 271AAB versus Section 271(1)(c) for penalties arising from searches conducted after July 1, 2012. The Tribunal noted that the search in the assessee's case was conducted on 30.10.2014, which falls within the specified period for Section 271AAB. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's contention that the addition made, representing unrecorded investment in land based on pattas found during the search, constituted 'undisclosed income' as defined under Section 271AAB. Therefore, the penalty ought to have been levied under Section 271AAB. The Tribunal further relied on its own decision in the case of the assessee's wife, Dr. Swati Tomar, which dealt with identical facts and circumstances, where the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was deleted on the grounds that Section 271AAB was the applicable provision. Consequently, the order levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was quashed. The appeal was allowed on this technical ground, making the grounds on the merits of the disputed addition academic.

The tribunal held that the AO's assumption of jurisdiction based on cash withdrawals was invalid. Furthermore, the tribunal found that the AO ignored evidence showing the credits were from the assessee's milk business and lacked basis for estimating profits at 10%.

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the issue had become infructuous due to the subsequent grant of registration under Section 12AB.

The Tribunal found that the existence of a marriage shortly before the search was undisputed and that gifts of cash and jewellery are common on such occasions. The amounts found were considered minuscule and attributable to marriage gifts.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had valid registration under section 12A for both assessment years in question. Therefore, the denial of exemption solely on the ground of non-registration was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the service of notice under Section 148 is mandatory for assuming valid jurisdiction under Section 147. Since it was demonstrated that the notice was not served on the assessee at any of his known addresses, the Assessing Officer lacked valid jurisdiction to frame the assessment. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal found the assessment to be unjustified, noting that the AO disallowed expenses for projects the assessee had demonstrably carried out. The Tribunal also held that the addition for unexplained donation was baseless as the assessee denied receiving it and its financial statements did not reflect it.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee had inadvertently filed the appeal before the Jaipur Bench instead of the Jodhpur Bench, which has the correct territorial jurisdiction. The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal to pursue the matter before the appropriate bench.

The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as the fresh assessment order rendered the appeal academic.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer wrongly assumed jurisdiction under Section 153C as the seized document was not incriminating for the impugned assessment year and did not pertain to the assessee's transactions in that year. The additions made were also found to be without merit.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) lacked application of mind while assuming jurisdiction under Section 153C due to significant factual discrepancies in the information relied upon. Consequently, the assessment order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had valid registration under section 12A for both assessment years in question. Therefore, the denial of exemption solely on the ground of non-registration was unsustainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause due to the non-service of notices at the specified address. The Tribunal also deleted the additions made by the AO on account of opening cash balance and cash deposits during demonetization, finding them to be explained or not unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of cash payments as withdrawals from his bank account. The Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's contention that direct correlation was necessary and that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the explanation based on business income.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee was unheard before the lower authorities, the matter should be decided afresh. Both the quantum addition and the penalty were restored back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee was unheard before the lower authorities, the matter should be decided afresh. Both the quantum addition and the penalty were restored back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause due to the lack of proper notice and opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal further held that additions cannot be made solely based on statements recorded during a survey under Section 133A of the Income Tax Act, especially when retracted and lacking corroborative evidence.

The Tribunal held that the WhatsApp chat did not provide evidence of an actual cash payment of Rs. 5 lakhs. The assessee's explanation of the chat being mere business enquiries was found to be more plausible.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the appeal on merits and had relied on a High Court order that was subsequently set aside by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after the High Court's final ruling.