ITAT Jodhpur Judgments — August 2026

The Tribunal held that the bad debt claim should be allowed as it was written off and met the conditions of Section 36(1)(vii), with any future recovery to be offered as income. The issue of Section 80IA deduction was remanded for fresh adjudication due to lack of factual details.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the matter for fresh consideration. This was based on the assessee obtaining the Rajasthan Public Trust Act registration post-rejection and the initial rejection being ex-parte.

The Tribunal set aside the order of the First Appellate Authority and directed it to reconsider the assessee's request for condonation of delay based on a detailed affidavit filed before the Tribunal. If the delay is condoned, the appeal should be decided on merits.

The Tribunal held that the grounds for rejection by the CIT(E) were unsubstantiated, especially since the trust had obtained the necessary registrations and approvals. The provisional approval granted under Section 80G could not be cancelled retrospectively.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was not justified in rejecting the application based on general observations of non-genuineness of activities. The primary focus for Section 12AA registration is the charitable nature of the trust's objects, which were found to be established by the submitted materials.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Exemption) and directed reconsideration of the applications. The CIT(E) was instructed to treat the application for registration under Section 12AA as valid and provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The consequential rejection of the 80G approval was also set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals due to bona fide reasons. Regarding the denial of exemption, the matter was set aside for reconsideration after a decision on the Section 12AA registration. For the cash deposit issue, the addition was set aside for de novo adjudication due to disputed facts and lack of clarity.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and restored the applications for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to examine the newly obtained registration and other supporting documents, and then decide on both the 12AB registration and 80G approval.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and set aside the CIT(E)'s orders. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee to furnish necessary documents and explanations.

The Tribunal held that the bad debt claim should be allowed as it was written off and met the conditions of Section 36(1)(vii), with any future recovery to be offered as income. The issue of Section 80IA deduction was remanded for fresh adjudication due to lack of factual details.

The Tribunal found no fault with the CIT(E)'s decision to reject the applications due to the assessee's withdrawal. However, the assessee was granted liberty to file fresh applications.

The Tribunal set aside the NFAC orders and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. This was to provide the assessee an opportunity to contest the additions on merits with supporting evidence.

The Tribunal set aside the NFAC orders and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. This was to provide the assessee an opportunity to contest the additions on merits with supporting evidence.

The Tribunal set aside the NFAC orders and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. This was to provide the assessee an opportunity to contest the additions on merits with supporting evidence.

The Tribunal set aside the NFAC orders and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. This was to provide the assessee an opportunity to contest the additions on merits with supporting evidence.

The Tribunal set aside the NFAC orders and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. This was to provide the assessee an opportunity to contest the additions on merits with supporting evidence.

The Tribunal held that the applications should not be rendered infructuous due to a procedural error in selecting the wrong clause. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) to consider the applications under the appropriate provisions.

The Tribunal held that the applications should not be rendered infructuous due to a procedural error in selecting the wrong clause. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) to consider the applications under the appropriate provisions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and set aside the orders of the CIT(E). The matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, considering the newly available registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act and other documents, and affording the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee now possesses the registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, the earlier rejection was not justified. The matter was remanded to the CIT(E) to grant registration under Section 12AA/12AB and reconsider the 80G approval.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored all applications to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. Assessees were given an opportunity to cure deficiencies and provide necessary documents.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored all applications to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. Assessees were given an opportunity to cure deficiencies and provide necessary documents.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored all applications to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. Assessees were given an opportunity to cure deficiencies and provide necessary documents.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored all applications to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. Assessees were given an opportunity to cure deficiencies and provide necessary documents.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored all applications to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. Assessees were given an opportunity to cure deficiencies and provide necessary documents.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored all applications to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. Assessees were given an opportunity to cure deficiencies and provide necessary documents.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored all applications to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. Assessees were given an opportunity to cure deficiencies and provide necessary documents.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored all applications to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. Assessees were given an opportunity to cure deficiencies and provide necessary documents.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored all applications to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. Assessees were given an opportunity to cure deficiencies and provide necessary documents.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored all applications to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. Assessees were given an opportunity to cure deficiencies and provide necessary documents.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored all applications to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. Assessees were given an opportunity to cure deficiencies and provide necessary documents.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored all applications to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. Assessees were given an opportunity to cure deficiencies and provide necessary documents.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored all applications to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. Assessees were given an opportunity to cure deficiencies and provide necessary documents.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored all applications to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. Assessees were given an opportunity to cure deficiencies and provide necessary documents.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored all applications to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. Assessees were given an opportunity to cure deficiencies and provide necessary documents.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored all applications to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. Assessees were given an opportunity to cure deficiencies and provide necessary documents.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored all applications to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. Assessees were given an opportunity to cure deficiencies and provide necessary documents.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored all applications to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. Assessees were given an opportunity to cure deficiencies and provide necessary documents.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored all applications to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. Assessees were given an opportunity to cure deficiencies and provide necessary documents.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored all applications to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. Assessees were given an opportunity to cure deficiencies and provide necessary documents.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored all applications to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. Assessees were given an opportunity to cure deficiencies and provide necessary documents.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored all applications to the file of the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication. Assessees were given an opportunity to cure deficiencies and provide necessary documents.

The Tribunal held that the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201(1) as it was under a judicial restraint from recovering from employees. The penalty under Section 271C was also quashed as it was consequential to the primary order.

The Tribunal held that the assessee could not be treated as an assessee in default under Section 201(1) as it was under a judicial restraint from recovering from employees. The penalty under Section 271C was also quashed as it was consequential to the primary order.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(Exemption) and directed reconsideration of the applications. The CIT(E) was instructed to treat the application for registration under Section 12AA as valid and provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The consequential rejection of the 80G approval was also set aside.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and restored both applications for fresh consideration. The assessee was given an opportunity to submit the Rajasthan Public Trust Act registration and other relevant documents.

The Tribunal held that profit from captive consumption of electricity qualifies for deduction under Section 80IA, citing Supreme Court decisions. It also deleted the disallowance for non-deduction of TDS, finding it unreasonable to expect production of numerous parties after a significant time lapse.

The Tribunal held that the dissolution clause adequately ensured that trust funds would be used for charitable purposes and that sufficient material regarding the trust's activities was available. Therefore, the rejection of the registration was not justified.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and restored both the application for registration under section 12AB and the application for approval under section 80G to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the AO was justified in reopening the assessment and making an addition for long-term capital gain when the assessee failed to provide the cost of acquisition. The AO's action was based on information received regarding undisclosed capital gains.