ITAT Jodhpur Judgments — July 2026

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide evidence for the source of cash deposits, but also noted a lack of sufficient opportunity for the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal found that the assessee did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the source of cash deposits. However, to ensure justice, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with a meaningful opportunity.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee is now registered under the RPT Act, the CIT(E) should re-examine the application. The CIT(E) is directed to consider the application afresh after the assessee removes deficiencies in form 10AB and justifies the genuineness of its activities.

The Tribunal directed the AO to examine Form 26AS and grant credit for the TDS mismatch, subject to verification that the corresponding income was offered for taxation. The assessee's turnover should be computed based on gross commission as per the CBDT circular.

The Tribunal found that both lower authorities decided the matter on non-compliance. Therefore, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, granting one more opportunity to the assessee to submit evidence.

The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to notices being sent to the wrong email address. The CIT(A) should have condoned the delay and decided the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention, stating that the CIT(A) has a statutory obligation to pass a speaking and reasoned order after considering the grounds raised. Dismissing an appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating on merits is contrary to law.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and found that the assessee did not get an effective opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

The Tribunal held that the approval granted under Section 153D was mechanical and lacked application of mind, rendering the assessment order void. The approval was granted for multiple assessment years and cases in a single day without proper scrutiny.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to sufficient cause. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity and that justice would be served by allowing the assessee to submit evidence. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. The CIT(A) found that the Assessing Officer failed to conduct an independent inquiry, relied mechanically on the investigation report, and violated principles of natural justice by not allowing cross-examination.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the matter for fresh consideration. The CIT(E) was directed to re-examine the application after the assessee rectifies the deficiencies in the form and justifies the genuineness of its activities.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the matter for fresh consideration. The CIT(E) was directed to examine the application afresh after the assessee removes deficiencies in the form and justifies the genuineness of activities.

The Tribunal held that Section 80G is an independent provision allowing deductions from gross total income, separate from business expenditure. Disallowance under Section 37(1) for CSR expenditure does not automatically bar a claim under Section 80G.