ITAT Jodhpur Judgments — June 2026

The Tribunal held that reopening based solely on a DVO's report without independent material is invalid, and additions based on double counting or without rejecting books of account are unjustified. The Tribunal also noted that local PWD rates should be preferred over CPWD rates for construction cost estimation.

The Tribunal held that the assessee made rent payments in cash, but each individual payment did not exceed Rs. 10,000 on any given day. Therefore, there was no violation of Section 40A(3).

The Tribunal held that the disallowances were unsustainable as the expenses were supported by documentary evidence and intrinsically linked to the normal functioning and compliance requirements of the assessees. The CIT(A)'s decision to allow statutory expenses while disallowing operational expenses was found to be internally inconsistent.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notices issued under Section 148 were void ab initio and consequently quashed the assessment orders. The Tribunal also found that the additions sustained by the CIT(A) were based on estimations without sufficient evidence and were therefore not justified.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notices issued under Section 148 were void ab initio and consequently quashed the assessment orders. The Tribunal also found that the additions sustained by the CIT(A) were based on estimations without sufficient evidence and were therefore not justified.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notices issued under Section 148 were void ab initio and consequently quashed the assessment orders. The Tribunal also found that the additions sustained by the CIT(A) were based on estimations without sufficient evidence and were therefore not justified.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notices issued under Section 148 were void ab initio and consequently quashed the assessment orders. Furthermore, the additions sustained by the CIT(A) based on estimations without sufficient evidence were also deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notices issued under Section 148 were void ab initio and consequently quashed the assessment orders. The Tribunal also found that the additions sustained by the CIT(A) were based on estimations without sufficient evidence and were therefore not justified.

The Tribunal held that the disallowances were unsustainable as the expenses were supported by documentary evidence and intrinsically linked to the normal functioning and compliance requirements of the assessees. The CIT(A)'s decision to allow statutory expenses while disallowing operational expenses was found to be internally inconsistent.

The Tribunal held that the disallowances were unsustainable as the expenses were supported by documentary evidence and intrinsically linked to the normal functioning and compliance requirements of the assessees. The CIT(A)'s decision to allow statutory expenses while disallowing operational expenses was found to be internally inconsistent.

The Tribunal held that the disallowances were unsustainable as the expenses were supported by documentary evidence and intrinsically linked to the normal functioning and compliance requirements of the assessees. The CIT(A)'s decision to allow statutory expenses while disallowing operational expenses was found to be internally inconsistent.

The Tribunal held that the disallowances were unsustainable as the expenses were supported by documentary evidence and intrinsically linked to the normal functioning and compliance requirements of the assessees. The CIT(A)'s decision to allow statutory expenses while disallowing operational expenses was found to be internally inconsistent.

The Tribunal held that the disallowances were unsustainable as the expenses were supported by documentary evidence and intrinsically linked to the normal functioning and compliance requirements of the assessees. The CIT(A)'s decision to allow statutory expenses while disallowing operational expenses was found to be internally inconsistent.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, inserted via Section 200A(1)(c) by the Finance Act, 2015, was effective from 01.06.2015 and thus not applicable to the assessment years in question. Furthermore, the levy was considered a debatable issue, not rectifiable under Section 154.

The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the assessee's claim for exemption of leave encashment under Section 10(10AA) as per the higher limit of Rs. 25,00,000/-, following numerous coordinate bench decisions.

The Tribunal held that since the purchase was recorded in the books and the payment was made through the bank, it could not be considered unexplained expenditure under Section 69C. The incorrect debiting to a wrong head was a clerical error, not a lack of explanation.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was unjustified as the Assessing Officer failed to provide evidence of the political party receiving commission or returning money to the assessee, or any direct nexus of benefit to the assessee. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.

The Tribunal held that Section 234E, inserted via Section 200A(1)(c) by the Finance Act, 2015, was effective from 01.06.2015 and thus not applicable to the assessment years in question. Furthermore, the levy was considered a debatable issue, not rectifiable under Section 154.

The Tribunal held that reopening the assessment after four years on the same material, without any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, amounts to a change of opinion and is impermissible in law. The assumption of jurisdiction by the AO was deemed illegal and void ab initio.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities had passed ex-parte orders without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. It was noted that the addition of total cash deposits instead of profit element was incorrect, and the assessee had a good arguable case.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had a reasonable cause for non-compliance due to the change in counsel and incorrect email communication. The matter was restored to the AO for de novo assessment.

The Tribunal held that the assessment and appellate orders were passed ex-parte without granting an adequate opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The addition of entire bank credits was considered arbitrary.