Loading ITAT cases…
266 tribunal orders from the Jodhpur bench in 2025.
Showing 40 of 266 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was perverse to the facts and against the principles of law. The evidence provided, including bank statements and an affidavit, sufficiently explained the source of the cash deposit. The Tribunal found no reason to reject the explained source.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not providing the assessee with adequate opportunity to be heard and present their case. The ex-parte order was a violation of natural justice principles. Therefore, the matter should be remanded.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the appeal for a Covid-period delay and that the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard. Relying on the Supreme Court's pronouncement on natural justice in Tin Box Company vs. CIT, the Tribunal set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter to the AO for a de novo assessment, directing the AO to provide due opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that both the AO and CIT(A) acted in violation of the principles of natural justice by not providing adequate opportunity to the assessee to present their case and evidence. The CIT(A) arbitrarily confirmed the assessment order without appreciating the facts and evidence.
The Ld. DR had no objection to the assessee's request for withdrawal. The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal, noting that the facts supported the dismissal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular No. 452 of 1986, a 'Kaccha Arhatiya' acts only as an agent for the farmer and not as a principal. Therefore, only the gross commission should be considered for turnover computation. The Tribunal found that the AO/CPC had not allowed the full credit of TDS due to the mismatch.
The Tribunal held that 'Kachha Arhatia' acts as an agent of the farmer, not a principal, and their turnover should only include their commission, as per CBDT Circular No. 452 of 1986. The AO/CPC has not allowed the full credit of TDS due to a mismatch in total receipts in ITR and Form-26AS.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ignored the assessee's contention of no admitted tax liability. Since the assessee claimed no taxable income and hence no advance tax liability, the dismissal of the appeal under Section 249(4)(b) was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the appeal by the CIT(A)/NFAC for delay condonation, without appreciating the genuine reasons, and without granting an adequate opportunity of being heard, violated the principles of natural justice. The assessment order was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that as per CBDT Circular 452/1986, a 'Kachha Arhatiya' acts only as an agent for the farmer and is not involved in the profits or losses of the sale. Their turnover should only include the commission earned, not the gross sale value of the crops. The AO/CPC wrongly disallowed TDS credit based on a mismatch.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC had rejected the appeal by declining to condone the delay without appreciating the genuine reasons for the delay and without granting an opportunity for hearing. The Tribunal, in view of the principles of natural justice, decided to restore the matter back to the AO for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee has since been granted registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. Considering the principles of natural justice and the arguable case presented by the assessee, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had been granted registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act and that this registration was a precondition for the 12AB registration. Therefore, the Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee provided evidence of remittance through banking channels and disclosed it in the return, the identity and receipt confirmation from the foreign entity were not independently verified. Both the assessee and the AO share responsibility for this lack of verification.
The tribunal noted that the appeal was rejected ex-parte without considering the merits of the case. The assessee contended that they did not receive notices for personal hearing. In the interest of natural justice, the tribunal decided to restore the matter.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal after finding sufficient cause. It was held that the CIT(E)'s insistence on innocuous details without appreciating the constitutional spirit behind the assessee's charitable activities was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the assessee has since obtained registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959.
The Tribunal held that the cause of action for the appeal arises from the intimation under section 143(1) and not from the assessment order under section 143(3) which merely adopted the figures from the intimation. The appeal should have been filed against the 143(1) intimation.
The Tribunal noted that the mode of receipt by cheque is not sufficient to prove the source. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's finding due to insufficient explanation of the investment source. The AO made the addition on a protective basis, pending the outcome of proceedings before the Settlement Commission.
The Tribunal noted that the AO's addition was made on a protective basis and that the CIT(A) confirmed it subject to the outcome of the settlement proceedings. Considering the peculiar facts and the need for natural justice, the Tribunal decided to grant the appellant one more opportunity. The matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh examination after affording adequate opportunity and considering the outcome of the proceedings before the Settlement Commission.
The Tribunal held that a blanket rejection of registration without granting a final opportunity to cure deficiencies cannot be sustained. Principles of natural justice require a fair opportunity. The assessee expressed readiness to provide all required documents.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had since obtained registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. Considering this development and the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(Exemption).
The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was made on a protective basis, and it was affirmed by the CIT(A) stating that the dismissal of the assessee's appeal was subject to the outcome of proceedings before the Settlement Commission. Considering the peculiar facts and in the interest of natural justice, the matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not adjudicating the specific objections raised by the AO regarding violations of the MSCS Act, bye-laws, and Banking Regulation Act. The CIT(A)'s order was considered cryptic and non-speaking, relying solely on earlier orders without addressing the AO's specific points.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that no incriminating material was found during the search and the AO had acted on suspicion. The Tribunal concurred, noting that section 153A additions require incriminating material, and previous judgments support this.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that no incriminating material was found during the search and the AO had acted on suspicion. The Tribunal concurred, noting that section 153A additions require incriminating material, and previous judgments support this.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, holding that no incriminating material was found during the search and the AO had acted on suspicion. The Tribunal concurred, noting that section 153A additions require incriminating material, and previous judgments support this.
The Tribunal noted that the Ld. DR had no objection to the withdrawal request. Accepting the assessee's reason as genuine, the Tribunal allowed the appeal to be withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the AO's addition was made on a protective basis, linked to proceedings involving Shri Vikram Anjana before the Settlement Commission. Considering the facts and natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity. The matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh examination after granting adequate opportunity and considering the outcome of the proceedings related to Shri Vikram Anjana.
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a delay of 284 days, as the CIT(A) found the reason provided (medical condition) to be unsubstantiated and lacking sufficient cause under section 249(3). The Tribunal, considering the large additions and the principle of substantial justice over technicalities, condoned the delay.
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a delay of 284 days, as the CIT(A) found the reason provided (medical condition) to be unsubstantiated and lacking sufficient cause under section 249(3). The Tribunal, considering the large additions and the principle of substantial justice over technicalities, condoned the delay.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee has since obtained registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act. Considering the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh adjudication regarding both the registration under Section 12AB and the approval under Section 80G(5).
The Tribunal noted that the AO made the addition on a protective basis, and the CIT(A)'s decision was subject to the outcome of proceedings before the Settlement Commission. Considering the peculiar facts and in the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to give the appellant one more opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved another opportunity to be heard, particularly considering the peculiar facts and the pending proceedings involving Shri Vikram Anjana. The matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh examination after granting adequate opportunity, taking into account the outcome of the proceedings concerning Shri Vikram Anjana.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs.2,71,000/- was not sustainable as the assessee had furnished supporting evidences and explanations which were not controverted by the Revenue. However, for the balance addition of Rs.2,00,000/-, the assessee failed to furnish satisfactory evidence, and thus, the addition was justified and sustained.
The Tribunal held that a blanket rejection of registration without granting a final opportunity to cure deficiencies cannot be sustained. Principles of natural justice require a fair opportunity. The assessee expressed readiness to provide all required documents.
The Tribunal held that the time limits prescribed for filing the application in Form 10AB under Section 80G(5) are mandatory and the CIT(Exemption) has no power to condone the delay. Therefore, the rejection of the application as non-maintainable was affirmed.
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed in limine due to a delay of 284 days, as the CIT(A) found the reason provided (medical condition) to be unsubstantiated and lacking sufficient cause under section 249(3). The Tribunal, considering the large additions and the principle of substantial justice over technicalities, condoned the delay.
The Tribunal held that credit for TDS shall be given for the assessment year in which the income is assessable. It noted that the CIT(A) granted credit based on Form 26AS without conclusive verification of the year of income offer or the reason for the mismatch.