ITAT Jodhpur Judgments — March 2025

The Tribunal held that while exemption under Section 11 is indeed not available without 12AA registration, the tax on the surplus should not be at MMR. Instead, it should be taxed as per Section 164(2) at the rates applicable to an Association of Persons (AOP) or an individual, with initial exemptions available.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was without jurisdiction as the twin tests (erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue) were not satisfied. It followed the ratio of the Madras High Court in Smt. Renuka Philip vs. ITO, stating that when a larger issue is pending before the CIT(A), the revisionary authority cannot exercise jurisdiction under Section 263.

The Departmental Representative had no objection to the request of the assessee to withdraw the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution. Citing relevant sections of the IT Act and judicial precedents, the Tribunal stated that the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits after applying their mind to all issues, and does not have the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal found that the ex-parte order violated principles of natural justice as the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present their case. The addition was based on a misinterpretation of the disputed amount as remission of liability instead of debit balances of debtors.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's request for withdrawal due to opting into the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and noted that the Ld. DR had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that payments made to VFPMCs are not contract payments under Section 194C. This decision was based on a coordinate bench ruling and CBDT circulars, which indicated that payments for forest conservation work executed by self-help groups under government schemes are not subject to TDS.

The Tribunal noted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal on the grounds that relief had already been secured via a rectification order. The Ld. DR confirmed having no objection to this withdrawal. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that payments made to VFPMCs are not contract payments under Section 194C. This decision was based on a coordinate bench ruling and CBDT circulars, which indicated that payments for forest conservation work executed by self-help groups under government schemes are not subject to TDS.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to disprove the genuineness of the cash sales and the availability of cash in the books of account. The Tribunal found that the sales and purchases were accepted by the AO and the VAT authorities, and there was sufficient stock to support the sales.

The Tribunal, noting the assessee's election to settle under the DTVSVS 2024 and the absence of objection from the Revenue, allowed the withdrawal request. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with the explicit provision that the assessee retains the liberty to revive the appeal should they fail to obtain the benefit of the DTVSVS scheme.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, as the Senior DR did not object to the withdrawal application. It was clarified that if the assessee fails to avail the benefits of the scheme due to technicalities, they are at liberty to file a Miscellaneous Application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act to revive the appeal within the prescribed limitation period.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, acknowledging the assessee's participation in the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Tribunal granted the assessee liberty to revive the appeal by filing a Misc. Application under section 254(2) of the Act if they fail to avail the scheme's benefit due to technicalities.

The Tribunal condoned the net delay of 280 days for the assessment year 2012-13, considering the sufficient cause presented by the official liquidator. The appeals were admitted and restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the circumstances explained by the official liquidator. The appeals were admitted and restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the net delay of 280 days in filing the appeal for AY 2012-13, considering the sufficient cause explained by the Official Liquidator. Consequently, the appeal was admitted and restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the circumstances including the appointment of the Official Liquidator, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the incorrect address used for communication. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting the sufficient cause presented by the Official Liquidator. The appeals were admitted and restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal acknowledged the assessees' applications for withdrawal of the appeals. Since the Ld. CIT DR had no objection to the withdrawal request, the Tribunal granted the request and dismissed all three appeals as withdrawn under Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.

The Tribunal condoned the net delay of 280 days in filing the appeal for AY 2012-13, considering the sufficient cause explained by the Official Liquidator. The appeals were admitted and restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), acknowledging the sufficient cause presented by the official liquidator. The appeals were admitted and restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The tribunal noted the assessees' request to withdraw the appeals and that the CIT DR had no objection. Consequently, all three appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The learned Counsel of the assessee requested to withdraw the appeals. The Ld. CIT DR had no objection to the request of the AR. Accordingly, all three appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the sufficient cause explained by the Official Liquidator. The appeals were admitted and restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal rejected the assessee's adjournment application and found no sufficient cause to condone the delay in filing the appeal, noting the lack of supporting evidence and repeated non-compliance. Consequently, the appeal was deemed not maintainable and dismissed as unadmitted. The Tribunal, however, granted the assessee liberty to revive the appeal upon filing a bona fide reason supported by a duly certified notarized affidavit.

The Tribunal held that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the search, additions under section 153A cannot be made for unabated assessments. The AO failed to discharge the burden of proof that the income sought to be taxed was not from materials seized during the search.