ITAT Jodhpur Judgments — January 2026

The tribunal, following a previous coordinate bench judgment, found that the CIT(E) acted hastily in rejecting the applications. It held that registration under the RPT Act, even if obtained subsequently, should be considered, and the genuineness of activities is less relevant at the initial registration stage. The tribunal remanded the cases back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal, following a previous coordinate bench judgment, found that the CIT(E) acted hastily in rejecting the applications. It held that registration under the RPT Act, even if obtained subsequently, should be considered, and the genuineness of activities is less relevant at the initial registration stage. The tribunal remanded the cases back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal, following a previous coordinate bench judgment, found that the CIT(E) acted hastily in rejecting the applications. It held that registration under the RPT Act, even if obtained subsequently, should be considered, and the genuineness of activities is less relevant at the initial registration stage. The tribunal remanded the cases back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal, following a previous coordinate bench judgment, found that the CIT(E) acted hastily in rejecting the applications, especially since RPT Act registration was either pending or subsequently granted. It held that the genuineness of activities is less relevant at the initial registration stage. Therefore, the tribunal remanded the cases back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal, following a previous coordinate bench judgment, found that the CIT(E) acted hastily in rejecting the applications. It held that registration under the RPT Act, even if obtained subsequently, should be considered, and the genuineness of activities is less relevant at the initial registration stage. The tribunal remanded the cases back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal, following a previous coordinate bench judgment, found that the CIT(E) acted hastily in rejecting the applications. It held that registration under the RPT Act, even if obtained subsequently, should be considered, and the genuineness of activities is less relevant at the initial registration stage. The tribunal remanded the cases back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal, following a previous coordinate bench judgment, found that the CIT(E) acted hastily in rejecting the applications. It held that registration under the RPT Act, even if obtained subsequently, should be considered, and the genuineness of activities is less relevant at the initial registration stage. The tribunal remanded the cases back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal, following a previous coordinate bench judgment, found that the CIT(E) acted hastily in rejecting the applications. It held that registration under the RPT Act, even if obtained subsequently, should be considered, and the genuineness of activities is less relevant at the initial registration stage. The tribunal remanded the cases back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal, following a previous coordinate bench judgment, found that the CIT(E) acted hastily in rejecting the applications. It held that registration under the RPT Act, even if obtained subsequently, should be considered, and the genuineness of activities is less relevant at the initial registration stage. The tribunal remanded the cases back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal, following a previous coordinate bench judgment, found that the CIT(E) acted hastily in rejecting the applications. It held that registration under the RPT Act, even if obtained subsequently, should be considered, and the genuineness of activities is less relevant at the initial registration stage. The tribunal remanded the cases back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The tribunal, following a previous coordinate bench judgment, found that the CIT(E) acted hastily in rejecting the applications. It held that registration under the RPT Act, even if obtained subsequently, should be considered, and the genuineness of activities is less relevant at the initial registration stage. The tribunal remanded the cases back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the 150-day delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for de novo adjudication, emphasizing the violation of natural justice principles and the need for adequate opportunity to be heard.

The Tribunal held that the CPC's denial of exemption under Section 143(1)(a) without issuing prior intimation to the assessee was not in accordance with the law. It also noted that the return was processed as valid despite being belated. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination of the exemption claim.

The Tribunal found the assessee had a genuine medical reason for the delay and condoned the 63-day delay. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter of disallowance of deduction under Section 80IBA to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT, which states that employees' contributions to PF and ESI paid after the due date are not deductible. The adjustment made by the CPC was deemed permissible under Section 143(1).

The Tribunal noted that the assessee fulfilled the conditions of CBDT Circular No. 07/2018 regarding condonation of delay for filing Form 10. It found that the CIT(A) should not have rejected the appeal solely on the ground of belated filing. The issue was restored to the AO for fresh examination on merits.

The ITAT condoned the 646-day delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to non-communication of electronic notices and the assessee's limited business operations. It held that the CIT(A) should have admitted the appeal and decided it on merits. The ITAT found the source of the cash deposits to be explained by sales proceeds and remanded the case to the AO for verification.

The Tribunal held that the CPC's denial of exemption under Section 143(1)(a) without issuing prior intimation to the assessee was not in accordance with the law. It also noted that the return was processed as valid despite being belated. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination of the exemption claim.

The tribunal remanded the matter back to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for a de novo assessment. This decision was based on the principles of natural justice, to provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard and present evidence to substantiate its claims.

The tribunal held that the orders passed by the revenue authorities violated the principles of natural justice. It restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, instructing to provide adequate opportunity of hearing and verify the source of cash deposits and genuineness of purchases.

The tribunal found that the technical glitches and the new NFAC system constituted a reasonable cause for the 63-day delay. It condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudication on merits, ensuring natural justice.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal for the assessee for AY 2017-18 had indeed been set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to set aside and restore all four penalty appeals to the CIT(A) to be decided along with the quantum appeal, ensuring adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal for the assessee for AY 2017-18 had indeed been set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to set aside and restore all four penalty appeals to the CIT(A) to be decided along with the quantum appeal, after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.

The tribunal held that the disallowance of remuneration to partners, in this case, reduced the carry-forward loss rather than increasing it or evading tax. Therefore, the assessee's action was beneficial to the revenue, and the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) was not justified and was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal for the assessee had indeed been set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to set aside and restore all four penalty appeals to the CIT(A) to be decided along with the quantum appeal, ensuring adequate opportunity of being heard for the assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal for AY 2017-18 had indeed been set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to set aside and restore all four penalty appeals to the CIT(A) to be decided along with the quantum appeal, ensuring adequate opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal allowed the miscellaneous application, recalling the original appeal. However, considering the latest CBDT Circular No. 5/2024, which removed the exception clause, the department conceded that the issue is now covered under low tax effect. Consequently, the original appeal was dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh examination and verification of the statement of rotation of funds provided by the assessee. The AO is to examine the source of the money received and utilized to explain the disputed amount after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.