ITAT Jodhpur Judgments — August 2026

The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable as the Assessing Officer relied solely on a general investigation report without independent inquiry. The purchase and sale were through banking channels, and the shares were traded on the stock exchange.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the explained circumstances for non-compliance. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in rejecting the documentary evidence with general statements. Considering the assessee's consistent stand, the fact that she offered capital gains in AY 2012-13, and the changing cash balance, the Tribunal found merit in her explanation.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the explained circumstances for non-compliance. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It found that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity to present supporting evidence before the First Appellate Authority. Therefore, the issue was restored to the First Appellate Authority for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the dismissal of the appeal on a technical ground without examining the merits was incorrect. The assessee argued that no advance tax was payable as there was no taxable income.

The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to low tax effect, as it did not fall under any exceptions prescribed by the CBDT circulars. The merits of the case were not considered.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order, directing a fresh consideration of the application. The CIT(E) must consider the assessee's submissions and evidence and provide a hearing.

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 found incurable deficiencies in the assessment and appeal orders, noting confusion regarding the assessee's status as individual versus AOP. It held that the addition was wrongly made in the hands of the individual assessee when the bank account clearly belonged to an AOP.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee was already registered as a charitable trust under section 12AA, there should be no impediment to granting approval under section 80G. The impugned order was set aside with a direction to grant approval.

The Tribunal noted that a Coordinate Bench had previously set aside the CIT(E)'s order and directed a de novo reconsideration of the application. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed compliance with the previous bench's directions.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee was granted registration under Section 12A/12AB and subsequently 80G approval by the CIT, the earlier rejection order was incorrect. The Tribunal set aside the rejection order and directed the grant of 80G approval.

The Tribunal found that the assessee was denied a personal hearing and proper consideration of their reply. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside to allow for fresh adjudication.

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 condoned the delay in filing the appeals and restored both the section 12AB registration and section 80G approval applications to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted an opportunity to furnish all necessary documents and explanations.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and restored both applications to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one effective opportunity to furnish all necessary documents and explanations.

The Tribunal set aside the NFAC's orders and restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The penalty orders were also set aside, allowing 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 Section 68 of the Act is not applicable as the transaction involved an outgoing payment for purchase, not a credit. Even if applicable, the assessee had established the genuineness of the transaction.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption)'s reasons for rejection were unsubstantiated. Since the assessee had a valid registration under Section 12A and its activities were deemed genuine by the competent authority for that registration, the denial of 80G approval was incorrect.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and restored the applications for fresh adjudication. It noted that the assessee had since obtained registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and directed the CIT(E) to consider this along with other documents and provide a reasonable opportunity for hearing.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and restored the applications for fresh adjudication. It noted that the assessee had since obtained registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, and directed the CIT(E) to consider this along with other documents and provide a reasonable opportunity for hearing.

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 found that the CIT(E) did not duly consider the assessee's submissions and documents. Since the assessee has now obtained RPT registration, the matter was set aside for fresh consideration by the CIT(E).

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 enhanced exemption limit of Rs. 25,00,000/- as per CBDT Notification No. 31/2023 applies to bank employees, following various coordinate bench decisions. The assessee is eligible for exemption of the entire leave encashment received.

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 rejecting the application on a technical ground was improper, especially since the assessee had obtained provisional registration. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and restored both applications (for 12AB registration and 80G approval) back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, considering subsequent events and a relevant CBDT circular.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee was granted registration under Section 12A/12AB and subsequently 80G approval by the CIT, the earlier rejection order was incorrect. The Tribunal set aside the rejection order and directed the grant of 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 restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination of the assessee's claim that the land was agricultural. The Assessing Officer was directed to revoke any attachment orders as the addition did not survive.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the applications to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to consider the applications along with earlier remanded matters and examine the impact of subsequent registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) is to consider the newly obtained registration and re-examine the genuineness of the assessee's activities.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to properly examine the documents and explanations provided by the assessee. The rejection was based on an incomplete appreciation of the material on record, and the assessee's activities were found to be genuine and consistent with its charitable objects.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s rejection was based on suspicion and inference, not concrete evidence. The local verification report corroborated the assessee's charitable activities, and the deficiencies pointed out were not sufficiently addressed. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to grant registration under section 12AB and approval under section 80G.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the applications to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to consider the applications along with earlier remanded matters and examine the impact of subsequent registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s rejection of the Section 12AB registration was not justified as the grounds were based on presumptions and unsupported estimates, and directed the CIT(E) to grant registration. The Tribunal also set aside the rejection of the Section 80G approval, considering a subsequent CBDT circular that extended the filing deadline.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, admitted the additional evidence, and set aside the CIT(A)'s orders. The matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after examining the new evidence.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, admitted the additional evidence, and set aside the CIT(A)'s orders. The matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after examining the new evidence.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to properly examine the documents and explanations provided by the assessee. The rejection was based on an incomplete appreciation of the material on record, and the assessee's activities were found to be genuine and consistent with its charitable objects.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the 12AB registration as the trust's activities were not exclusively for a particular community and the genuineness was not disproven. It also found that the 80G application was not time-barred as an earlier application was filed within the prescribed period. Consequently, both registration and approval were directed to be granted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, admitted the additional evidence, and set aside the CIT(A)'s orders. The matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after examining the new evidence.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications without considering the assessee's detailed reply and supporting documents. The Tribunal found that the activities were charitable, financial transactions were explained, and the application timeline was covered by a subsequent CBDT circular.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the matters for fresh adjudication. This was because the assessee had since obtained registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, and there was a factual dispute regarding the submission of documents.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the matters for fresh adjudication. This was because the assessee had since obtained registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, and there was a factual dispute regarding the submission of documents.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the applications to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to consider the applications along with earlier remanded matters and examine the impact of subsequent registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act.

The Tribunal restored the applications to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to submit the newly obtained Rajasthan Public Trust Act registration and other supporting documents. The CIT(E) is to pass fresh speaking orders after verifying the documents and activities.