ITAT Jodhpur Judgments — September 2025

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence and a history of declaring similar income to explain the sources of the cash deposits. It held that income already disclosed or plausibly explained cannot be treated as undisclosed income or subjected to double taxation. Therefore, the addition made under Section 68 and the application of Section 115BBE by the lower authorities were deemed infirm and perverse to the facts on record, leading to the deletion of the addition.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years under section 153C was defective, as per Supreme Court rulings. Regarding conversion and development expenses, the Tribunal found that the amount was correctly included in closing stock, making the addition unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years under section 153C was defective, as per Supreme Court rulings. Regarding conversion and development expenses, the Tribunal found that the amount was correctly included in closing stock, making the addition unsustainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing Sunil Kumar Goyal's appeals after considering the explanation provided. The appeals were consolidated and heard together as they involved common issues on similar facts. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer reopened assessments based on information about investments made by the assessees with M/s U B Investment, but did not adequately discuss the source of funds for these investments as presented by the assessees.

The tribunal is hearing an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the NFAC, Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The case originated from an order passed by the Income-tax Officer, Exemption, Jodhpur.

The Tribunal held that the requirement to file Form 10IE is directory, not mandatory. The failure to file Form 10IE by the due date does not invalidate the assessee's claim for the new tax regime, especially when the option was exercised in the preceding year.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had provided explanations and affidavits regarding the source of the cash, including past savings and family settlement. The revenue authorities failed to disprove the evidence or provide contrary material.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing Sunil Kumar Goyal's appeals after considering the explanation provided. The appeals were consolidated and heard together as they involved common issues on similar facts. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer reopened assessments based on information about investments made by the assessees with M/s U B Investment, but did not adequately discuss the source of funds for these investments as presented by the assessees.

The Tribunal held that the scope of inquiry for granting registration under Section 12AB is limited to the genuineness of the trust's activities and their consonance with stated objects. Issues concerning the allowability of exemption and specific expenditure violations are matters for assessment proceedings. The rejection was primarily based on allegations that fall within the assessment domain and not solely on the denial of registration.

The Tribunal held that the scope of inquiry for granting registration under Section 12AB is limited to the genuineness of the trust's activities and their consonance with stated objects. Issues concerning the allowability of exemption and specific expenditure violations are matters for assessment proceedings. The rejection was primarily based on allegations that fall within the assessment domain and not solely on the denial of registration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals for Sunil Kumar Goyal, accepting the reason of not having e-filing password from a previous consultant. It rejected the argument about inconsistency between the reasons for re-opening and the subject matter of assessment. However, finding that neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had discussed the documents submitted by the assessees regarding the source of funds for the investments, the Tribunal remanded all four appeals to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after proper verification.

The Tribunal held that penalty under section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when additions are sustained purely on an estimated basis and when the AO fails to prove concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars. The disallowance of purchases on an ad hoc/estimated basis does not equate to furnishing inaccurate particulars.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's consolidated satisfaction note for multiple assessment years under section 153C was defective, as per Supreme Court rulings. Regarding conversion and development expenses, the Tribunal found that the amount was correctly included in closing stock, making the addition unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the interest subsidies received under TUFS and RIPS were capital receipts, as they were provided for technological upgradation, capacity expansion, and employment generation in the textile industry. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that the interest subsidy received under TUFS and RIPS was for technological upgradation, capacity expansion, and employment generation, thus qualifying as a capital receipt. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that the interest subsidy received under TUFS and RIPS was for technological upgradation and promoting capacity expansion, thus it is a capital receipt. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision.

The Tribunal held that the interest subsidy received under TUFS and RIPS was for technological upgradation and promoting capacity expansion, thus constituting a capital receipt. The CIT(A)'s decision was upheld based on various High Court and Supreme Court judgments.

The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied when additions are sustained purely on an estimated basis, especially when the assessee has provided supporting evidence. The penalty was deleted for AY 2009-10.

The Tribunal held that the AO disallowed expenses without rejecting the books of account. The CIT(A) also did not point out specific lacunae in the expenses. The assessee had undergone tax audit and maintained books of account as per Section 44AB. No contradiction was established between audited books and lower authorities' findings.

The Tribunal noted that a notice under section 148 cannot be validly issued to assess any case on a protective basis. Such assessments are considered hit and trial and go against the AO's duty to form a firm opinion. Therefore, the notice and subsequent assessment were deemed invalid.

The Tribunal held that while the AO's initial findings pointed to a larger unexplained investment, the assessee's alternate submission, supported by a chart, indicated that only Rs. 7,00,000 related to the impugned assessment year. Considering the assessee's 50% share, the addition was restricted to Rs. 3,50,000.

The Tribunal held that the scope of inquiry for granting registration under Section 12AB is limited to the genuineness of the trust's activities and their consonance with stated objects. Issues concerning the allowability of exemption and specific expenditure violations are matters for assessment proceedings. The rejection was primarily based on allegations that fall within the assessment domain and not solely on the denial of registration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing Sunil Kumar Goyal's appeals after considering the explanation provided. The appeals were consolidated and heard together as they involved common issues on similar facts. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer reopened assessments based on information about investments made by the assessees with M/s U B Investment, but did not adequately discuss the source of funds for these investments as presented by the assessees.

The tribunal noted that the assessee had provided explanations and affidavits regarding the source of the cash, including past savings and family settlement. The revenue authorities failed to disprove the evidence or provide contrary material.

The Tribunal noted that notices were issued to the assessee, but there was non-compliance. Despite this, considering the issue involved and the opportunity not fully availed by the assessee, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal noted that the application for registration was withdrawn by the appellant. The appellant's counsel admitted to submitting a withdrawal application. Therefore, the appeal against the dismissal of the registration application was deemed not maintainable.

The Tribunal allowed the prayer of the appellant's AR. The appeal was dismissed as having been withdrawn, with liberty to revive it if no settlement is reached under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's claim of being a simple person but noted the non-compliance with notices. Considering the large addition amount, the Tribunal decided to afford another opportunity to the appellant for participation in proceedings before the Assessing Officer, with the condition of depositing costs.

The Tribunal held that the requirement to file Form 10IE is directory, not mandatory. The failure to file Form 10IE by the due date does not invalidate the assessee's claim for the new tax regime, especially when the option was exercised in the preceding year.

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 163 days in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It was noted that the assessee has since obtained the requisite registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, thus rectifying the default. Consequently, the applications for registration were restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E).

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 163 days in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause. It was noted that the assessee has since obtained the requisite registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, thus rectifying the default. Consequently, the applications for registration were restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E).