ITAT Jodhpur Judgments — August 2026

The Tribunal held that the appeals should be disposed of with specific directions for each category of deficiency. The Tribunal emphasized that the restored proceedings should be limited to the precise deficiency that led to the impugned order, not a wholesale fresh enquiry.

The Tribunal categorized the appeals and provided specific directions for each category. The appeals were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration based on the nature of the deficiencies identified in the original orders.

The Tribunal held that the appeals should be disposed of with specific directions for each category of deficiency. The Tribunal emphasized that the restored proceedings should be limited to the precise deficiency that led to the impugned order, not a wholesale fresh enquiry.

The Tribunal categorized the appeals and provided specific directions for each category. The appeals were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration based on the nature of the deficiencies identified in the original orders.

The Tribunal held that the appeals should be disposed of with specific directions for each category of deficiency. The Tribunal emphasized that the restored proceedings should be limited to the precise deficiency that led to the impugned order, not a wholesale fresh enquiry.

The Tribunal categorized the appeals and provided specific directions for each category. The appeals were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration based on the nature of the deficiencies identified in the original orders.

The Tribunal held that the substantive claim for registration should be examined on merits, as the assessee had attempted to surrender the provisional registration and had now filed under the correct clause. The rejection based on a procedural defect was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the appeals should be disposed of with specific directions for each category of deficiency. The Tribunal emphasized that the restored proceedings should be limited to the precise deficiency that led to the impugned order, not a wholesale fresh enquiry.

The Tribunal held that the facts and basis of the addition were materially identical to a previous case decided in favor of the assessee. Following judicial consistency and parity, the addition was deleted.

The Tribunal noted that no grievance survived and the assessees did not wish to pursue the appeals. Consequently, there was nothing left for adjudication and the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the appeals should be disposed of with specific directions for each category of deficiency. The Tribunal emphasized that the restored proceedings should be limited to the precise deficiency that led to the impugned order, not a wholesale fresh enquiry.

The Tribunal held that the substantive claim for registration should be examined on merits, as the assessee had attempted to surrender the provisional registration and had now filed under the correct clause. The rejection based on a procedural defect was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the appeals should be disposed of with specific directions for each category of deficiency. The Tribunal emphasized that the restored proceedings should be limited to the precise deficiency that led to the impugned order, not a wholesale fresh enquiry.

The Tribunal categorized the appeals and provided specific directions for each category. The appeals were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration based on the nature of the deficiencies identified in the original orders.

The Tribunal categorized the appeals and provided specific directions for each category. The appeals were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration based on the nature of the deficiencies identified in the original orders.

The Tribunal held that the appeals should be disposed of with specific directions for each category of deficiency. The Tribunal emphasized that the restored proceedings should be limited to the precise deficiency that led to the impugned order, not a wholesale fresh enquiry.

The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 was invalid because it was based on a demonstrably incorrect foundational fact regarding the amount of share application money received. The reassessment order was quashed due to the vitiated jurisdiction.

The Tribunal held that the appeals should be disposed of with specific directions for each category of deficiency. The Tribunal emphasized that the restored proceedings should be limited to the precise deficiency that led to the impugned order, not a wholesale fresh enquiry.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's applications should be examined on their merits, rather than being rejected solely due to previous errors in filing under incorrect clauses. The CIT(E) was directed to re-examine the applications for registration and approval on their substantive eligibility.

The Tribunal held that the appeals should be disposed of with specific directions for each category of deficiency. The Tribunal emphasized that the restored proceedings should be limited to the precise deficiency that led to the impugned order, not a wholesale fresh enquiry.

The Tribunal held that the appeals should be disposed of with specific directions for each category of deficiency. The Tribunal emphasized that the restored proceedings should be limited to the precise deficiency that led to the impugned order, not a wholesale fresh enquiry.

The Tribunal noted that no grievance survived and the assessees did not wish to pursue the appeals. Consequently, the Tribunal found no purpose in adjudicating the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal held that the rejection based on a procedural defect (incorrect sub-clause selection) was not sustainable, especially when the assessee was acting under liberty granted by a previous Tribunal order. The subsequent registration under the Rajasthan Public Trusts Act also removed a key deficiency.

The Tribunal held that since a fresh application for registration is pending before the CIT(E) and is under consideration, the grievance raised in the current appeal does not survive. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as infructuous.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) committed a fundamental error by proceeding from the absence of RPT registration to infer non-compliance, without first determining whether the RPT Act was applicable to the assessee. Section 12AB and section 80G require examination of compliance with other laws that are material for the trust's objects, but this presupposes the applicability of such other laws. The Tribunal found that the assessee had invoked section 77(1) of the RPT Act, which exempts public trusts administered by agencies under state government control. The CIT(E) should have first examined this claim, considering the MOU, the management committee's composition with government representation, government supervision, and the 'No Profit No Loss' operation. The Tribunal noted that receipt of government grants or private trustees are not determinative factors under section 77(1). The rejection of applications based solely on the absence of RPT registration, without examining the section 77(1) claim, was unsustainable. Consequently, both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, and the applications were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, with specific directions to examine the section 77(1) claim first.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings should not be a wholesale remand but should correspond to the precise deficiency in the impugned order. Opportunities were provided for rectification, production of documents, and further examination where necessary.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings should not be a wholesale remand but should correspond to the precise deficiency in the impugned order. Opportunities were provided for rectification, production of documents, and further examination where necessary.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings should not be a wholesale remand but should correspond to the precise deficiency in the impugned order. Opportunities were provided for rectification, production of documents, and further examination where necessary.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings should not be a wholesale remand but should correspond to the precise deficiency in the impugned order. Opportunities were provided for rectification, production of documents, and further examination where necessary.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings should not be a wholesale remand but should correspond to the precise deficiency in the impugned order. Opportunities were provided for rectification, production of documents, and further examination where necessary.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings should not be a wholesale remand but should correspond to the precise deficiency in the impugned order. Opportunities were provided for rectification, production of documents, and further examination where necessary.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings should not be a wholesale remand but should correspond to the precise deficiency in the impugned order. Opportunities were provided for rectification, production of documents, and further examination where necessary.

The Tribunal held that operating medical mobile units under a government contract for medical relief does not convert the activity into business. The source of funding or contractual mechanism does not alter the charitable nature of medical relief, and TDS under section 194C is merely a procedural mechanism.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings should not be a wholesale remand but should correspond to the precise deficiency in the impugned order. Opportunities were provided for rectification, production of documents, and further examination where necessary.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings should not be a wholesale remand but should correspond to the precise deficiency in the impugned order. Opportunities were provided for rectification, production of documents, and further examination where necessary.

The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's reasons bona fide. It held that the additional evidence, crucial for the genuineness of share transactions, should have been examined by the CIT(A) before deciding the appeal on merits.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings should not be a wholesale remand but should correspond to the precise deficiency in the impugned order. Opportunities were provided for rectification, production of documents, and further examination where necessary.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings should not be a wholesale remand but should correspond to the precise deficiency in the impugned order. Opportunities were provided for rectification, production of documents, and further examination where necessary.

The Tribunal noted that no grievance survived and the assessees did not wish to pursue the appeals. Consequently, the Tribunal found no purpose in adjudicating the appeals on merits.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings should not be a wholesale remand but should correspond to the precise deficiency in the impugned order. Opportunities were provided for rectification, production of documents, and further examination where necessary.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings should not be a wholesale remand but should correspond to the precise deficiency in the impugned order. Opportunities were provided for rectification, production of documents, and further examination where necessary.

The tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in disposing of the appeal ex parte without affording the assessee an effective opportunity to present its case. The principles of natural justice were violated.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings should not be a wholesale remand but should correspond to the precise deficiency in the impugned order. Opportunities were provided for rectification, production of documents, and further examination where necessary.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings should not be a wholesale remand but should correspond to the precise deficiency in the impugned order. Opportunities were provided for rectification, production of documents, and further examination where necessary.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not impose penalty for misreporting of income when the proceedings were initiated and the assessee was put to notice only for under-reporting of income. This change in the charge fundamentally vitiates the penalty proceedings.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings should not be a wholesale remand but should correspond to the precise deficiency in the impugned order. Opportunities were provided for rectification, production of documents, and further examination where necessary.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings should not be a wholesale remand but should correspond to the precise deficiency in the impugned order. Opportunities were provided for rectification, production of documents, and further examination where necessary.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings should not be a wholesale remand but should correspond to the precise deficiency in the impugned order. Opportunities were provided for rectification, production of documents, and further examination where necessary.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings should not be a wholesale remand but should correspond to the precise deficiency in the impugned order. Opportunities were provided for rectification, production of documents, and further examination where necessary.

The Tribunal held that the proceedings should not be a wholesale remand but should correspond to the precise deficiency in the impugned order. Opportunities were provided for rectification, production of documents, and further examination where necessary.