ITAT Jodhpur Judgments — August 2026

The Tribunal held that the impugned orders of the CIT(E) were not to be treated as final rejections but rather as directions for further proceedings. The Tribunal categorized the appeals based on the nature of deficiencies and provided specific directions for each category. For instance, where registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act was pending, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to verify the certificate upon issuance and proceed with the section 12AB application without requiring the assessee to restart the entire process. For issues concerning the genuineness of activities, the Tribunal directed a fresh examination based on primary material, emphasizing that previous failure to establish genuineness would not automatically constitute a positive finding of non-genuineness. Procedural defects were to be rectified, and applications adjudicated on merits. Rejection of section 80G approval, often consequential to the absence of section 12AB registration, was to be considered after or alongside the determination of section 12AB proceedings. The Tribunal stressed that the restored proceedings should not be a wholesale de novo enquiry but should correspond to the precise deficiency that led to the impugned order. The ultimate eligibility of the assessees was left open for determination by the prescribed authority.

The Tribunal held that there was a disconnect between the material furnished by the assessee and the premise on which the appeals were disposed of by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that there was a disconnect between the material submitted by the assessee and the basis on which the appeals were disposed of by the CIT(A). It was deemed inappropriate to examine these issues for the first time at the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held that there was a disconnect between the material furnished by the assessee and the premise on which the appeals were disposed of by the CIT(A). Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the appeal was disposed of ex parte without an effective opportunity for the assessee to present its case. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remanding the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to substantiate the source of payments, banking channels used, and correlation with sales and trading results.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of Section 80G approval was consequential to the absence of valid Section 12AB registration. In the four appeals where fresh Section 12AB applications were pending, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the Section 80G applications to the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to first decide the pending Section 12AB applications and thereafter consider the Section 80G applications in light of the outcome. In the appeal where Section 12AB registration had been granted, the Tribunal also set aside the impugned order and restored the Section 80G application to the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to reconsider the Section 80G application taking into account the subsisting Section 12AB registration. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the satisfaction of other statutory conditions for Section 80G approval, which would be examined by the CIT(E). The ratio is that consequential orders based on a factual premise that is subject to pending adjudication or has subsequently changed, require reconsideration by the original authority.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of Section 80G approval was consequential to the absence of valid Section 12AB registration. In the four appeals where fresh Section 12AB applications were pending, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the Section 80G applications to the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to first decide the pending Section 12AB applications and thereafter consider the Section 80G applications in light of the outcome. In the appeal where Section 12AB registration had been granted, the Tribunal also set aside the impugned order and restored the Section 80G application to the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to reconsider the Section 80G application taking into account the subsisting Section 12AB registration. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the satisfaction of other statutory conditions for Section 80G approval, which would be examined by the CIT(E). The ratio is that consequential orders based on a factual premise that is subject to pending adjudication or has subsequently changed, require reconsideration by the original authority.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of Section 80G approval was consequential to the absence of valid Section 12AB registration. In the four appeals where fresh Section 12AB applications were pending, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the Section 80G applications to the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to first decide the pending Section 12AB applications and thereafter consider the Section 80G applications in light of the outcome. In the appeal where Section 12AB registration had been granted, the Tribunal also set aside the impugned order and restored the Section 80G application to the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to reconsider the Section 80G application taking into account the subsisting Section 12AB registration. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the satisfaction of other statutory conditions for Section 80G approval, which would be examined by the CIT(E). The ratio is that consequential orders based on a factual premise that is subject to pending adjudication or has subsequently changed, require reconsideration by the original authority.

The Tribunal observed that the reassessment and appellate proceedings were ex parte and lacked effective adjudication on the merits of the assessee's claims. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that section 115BBE can only be applied if the income is first brought within the ambit of sections 68 to 69D. Merely surrendering an amount during a survey does not automatically attract section 115BBE without fulfilling the conditions of the specified deeming provisions.

The Tribunal held that the character of a receipt as a corpus contribution, with specific directions from donors, cannot be altered to ordinary income merely because exemption was claimed under section 10(23C)(vi) instead of section 11. The substance of the receipt should prevail over the nomenclature of the exemption provision invoked.

The Tribunal held that once the quantum assessments and the additions forming the basis of the penalties were quashed by the ITAT, the penalties could not survive independently. The pendency of the Revenue's appeal before the High Court does not validate the penalties.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s premise regarding the lack of registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act appeared incorrect based on the evidence provided. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's grievance about not being afforded an adequate opportunity to present their case.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided evidence of trust registration and submission of complete documents. Therefore, the CIT(E) should re-examine the application considering this material.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) must give effect to the earlier appellate direction and could not reject the application without proper consideration. The second application was deemed infructuous pending the outcome of the first.

The Tribunal held that the objection regarding lack of registration was no longer valid as the assessee had obtained the required registration. It further held that the mere generation of surplus or construction on trustees' land does not, by itself, indicate a profit motive or diversion of funds.

The Tribunal held that a Section 8 company is not required to obtain registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, as clarified by the relevant state authority. Therefore, the rejection of the application on this ground was unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in insisting on registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, as Section 77 of the Act exempts public trusts administered by state government agencies or local authorities. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's prior registrations under section 12AA and 12AB.

The Tribunal held that the rejection order was flawed as it overlooked the subsisting registration under section 12A and did not properly consider the nature of the provisional approval under section 80G(5) in light of CBDT Circular No. 11 of 2022. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that once the quantum assessments and the additions forming the basis of the penalties were quashed by the ITAT, the penalties could not survive independently. The pendency of the Revenue's appeal before the High Court does not validate the penalties.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), stating that substantial justice would be better served by adjudicating the matter on merits. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to re-examine the appeal on its merits, considering the assessee's explanation regarding his Business Correspondent activities.

The Tribunal held that the application for 12A/12AB registration was premature as the process for obtaining registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act was not yet initiated. The assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh application once the process under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act was initiated.

The Tribunal held that the AO's estimation of reduced yield and increased expenditure lacked material evidence. The agricultural activity itself was not doubted, and the additions were based on ad-hoc estimations.

The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. This was because the assessee did not have an effective opportunity to present its case and evidence due to the communication issues.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee had not furnished complete details, substantial material was provided. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh examination to avoid foreclosing the assessee's claim.

The Tribunal held that the activities undertaken by the assessee, including forming Self-Help Groups and implementing government welfare programs, were in line with its charitable objects. The Tribunal also found that the amount shown as salary to the President was for disbursement to beneficiaries and not for personal benefit.

The Tribunal held that the rejection was based on procedural deficiencies. Since the assessee is willing to furnish a complete application and documents, the matter should be reconsidered by the CIT(E).

The Tribunal held that interest on income-tax refunds is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(b) as it does not arise from the primary business activity. Similarly, interest from commercial banks is not eligible under Section 80P(2)(d) as the investment is not with another cooperative society.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s rejection was unsustainable. The subsisting registration and approval could not be disregarded simply because the CIT(E) believed they were granted under an incorrect clause. Furthermore, any procedural error in mentioning the wrong clause in the subsequent application was curable and should not lead to rejection without examining the merits.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) must give effect to the earlier appellate direction and could not reject the application without proper consideration. The second application was deemed infructuous pending the outcome of the first.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees no longer wished to pursue their appeals as no grievance survived. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that interest on income-tax refunds is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(b) as it does not arise from the primary business activity. Similarly, interest from commercial banks is not eligible under Section 80P(2)(d) as the investment is not with another cooperative society.

The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves an effective opportunity to present their case due to reasonable explanation for their absence. The assessment and penalty orders were set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the enhanced rate of tax under Section 115BBE, introduced by the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016, is prospective and applies from FY 2017-18. It directed the AO to recompute tax at the pre-amendment rate of 30% for the income surrendered in FY 2016-17. The Tribunal also remanded the issue of cash deposit for verification of telescoping.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees no longer wished to pursue their appeals as no grievance survived. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that since the assessees no longer wished to pursue the appeals and no grievance survived, there was nothing left for adjudication. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that interest on income-tax refunds is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(b) as it does not arise from the primary business activity. Similarly, interest from commercial banks is not eligible under Section 80P(2)(d) as the investment is not with another cooperative society.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees no longer wished to pursue their appeals as no grievance survived. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s rejection was unsustainable. The subsisting registration and approval could not be disregarded simply because the CIT(E) believed they were granted under an incorrect clause. Furthermore, any procedural error in mentioning the wrong clause in the subsequent application was curable and should not lead to rejection without examining the merits.

The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves an effective opportunity to present their case due to reasonable explanation for their absence. The assessment and penalty orders were set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the subsequent grant of registration under section 12AB and the amendment of the trust deed necessitate a fresh examination of the 80G application. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that Section 69 taxes investments based on the financial year they are made, not when legal title is acquired. Since the payments were made in FY 2017-18, the addition for AY 2019-20 was incorrect.

The Tribunal held that the assessee deserves an effective opportunity to present their case due to reasonable explanation for their absence. The assessment and penalty orders were set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees no longer wished to pursue their appeals as no grievance survived. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

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

The Tribunal noted that the assessees no longer wished to pursue their appeals as no grievance survived. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees no longer wished to pursue their appeals as no grievance survived. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal noted that the assessees no longer wished to pursue their appeals as no grievance survived. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

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.