ITAT Jodhpur Judgments — September 2026

The Tribunal held that the penalty imposed under Section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is liable to be deleted. The reasoning was based on the appellate order passed in the case of the assessee's wife, who was a co-owner of the same property. In that case, the CIT(A) had deleted the penalty by observing that the seller had duly disclosed the entire sale consideration in their Income Tax Return (ITR), claimed deductions under Section 54, and paid the due taxes. Furthermore, a Form 26A certificate from a Chartered Accountant was provided, confirming the seller's compliance. The Tribunal noted that the facts in the present case were identical, except for the assessee being the other co-owner. Therefore, following the precedent set in the wife's case, the penalty was deleted. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee had paid the interest due under Section 201/201(1A) of the Act. The appeal was allowed, and the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal held that Rs. 1.00 lakh of the receipt was a refund of security deposit and not income. Furthermore, receipts cannot be taxed on a gross basis without allowing for expenses incurred in earning them. The addition was deemed unsustainable.

The Tribunal held that the addition was not justified as it was based solely on a loose sheet found in another party's premises, without any corroborative evidence from the assessee's side. The Tribunal noted that a similar addition in the case of the purchaser (BGCCPL) had already been deleted by a Coordinate Bench.

The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable as the assessee had provided account confirmations from the lenders, and the loans were availed and repaid through banking channels in earlier years.

The Tribunal deleted the Section 44AD additions, finding the cash deposits explained and unsecured loans to be opening balances from prior years. It also deleted the interest income addition, noting the nexus with interest expenditure, and the Section 68 addition for sundry creditors as they were opening balances, consequently deleting the Section 69C disallowance.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including party-wise details, invoices, and transportation documents, to establish the source of cash deposits as sales proceeds. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

The Tribunal found that the credit and debit entries in the bank account represented loans given and recovered, which was the assessee's primary activity. The AO failed to provide credible material to justify the addition made on a presumptive business profit basis.

The ITAT, following a decision of a Coordinate Bench for the Assessment Year 2015-16 in the assessee's own case, found the issue squarely covered. It held that the interest rate paid was at arm's length and consequently deleted the disallowance.

The tribunal noted that the assessee wished to withdraw the appeal and the Ld. DR had no objection. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal held that Section 87A provides rebate on the entire tax liability computed on total income without distinguishing between normal and special rate incomes. The proviso to Section 87A and the non-obstante clause in Section 115BAC(1A) do not exclude special rate incomes from the rebate calculation for the relevant assessment year.

The Tribunal held that the PCIT's jurisdiction to cancel the registration was not established as the Revenue failed to produce any order under section 127 or other jurisdictional instruments. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the addition sustained by the CIT(A) could not be upheld as the sales and trading results were not disturbed, and the revenue failed to establish any separate undisclosed source. Assessing the amount again under section 68 would result in double inclusion of business receipts.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) was justified in not treating the proposal for amendment dated 20.06.2025 as an effective amendment until approved and registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, citing *Palghat Shadi Mahal Trust* and *CIT v. Dawoodi Bohara Jamat*. However, the Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the application solely on the potential applicability of section 13(1)(b) and clause (d) of the Explanation below section 12AB(4), without identifying actual application of income constituting a violation. The Tribunal noted that while an object might refer to needy persons of the Jain community, assistance to the poor is essentially relief to the poor, and the restriction on beneficiaries may have consequences under section 13(1)(b) during exemption assessment, but does not convert the activity's nature from charitable to non-charitable for registration purposes. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee that the applicability of section 13(1)(b) is generally for the Assessing Officer to examine during assessment based on actual application of income. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the application to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to provide the current status of amendments, the amended deed if registered, evidence of approval, a note on activities, books of account, and beneficiary details. The CIT(E) is to examine the legal efficacy of amendments, the genuineness of activities, and compliance with laws, and not reject the application based on the mere possibility of section 13(1)(b) applicability. The Tribunal did not express a final opinion on the assessee's entitlement to registration.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of books of account was unsustainable as the assessee had provided sufficient explanation and supporting documents. The addition under section 69A was deleted because the cash deposited was recorded in the books and did not exceed the cash balance, and the revenue failed to establish an undisclosed source.

The Tribunal noted that the registration certificate under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959, was issued subsequent to the CIT(E)'s order and thus could not have been examined by the CIT(E). The assessee had also provided replies, accounts, and financial statements to support the genuineness of its activities. The Tribunal found that the three grounds on which the CIT(E) rejected the application required examination with reference to the complete trust deed, accounts, supporting documents, and the subsequent registration under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1959. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the application to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to examine the scope of objects, beneficiaries, genuineness of activities, accounts, supporting evidence, and the legal effect of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act registration. The cancellation of provisional registration was also to be reconsidered. The Tribunal explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the assessee's eligibility for registration, leaving all issues open for adjudication. Grounds 1 to 4 were allowed for statistical purposes.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the grounds of appeal properly, including jurisdictional objections, the denial of cross-examination, and the treatment of additional evidence. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the addition under section 68 could not be sustained as the assessee had provided documentary evidence of the loan's genuineness, including confirmation, bank statements, and repayment. The Tribunal followed a jurisdictional High Court decision which held that similar evidence was sufficient.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to provide specific material or evidence to prove a breakdown of mutuality or transactions with non-members. The AO's allegations were unsubstantiated and lacked quantification, therefore, the CIT(A)'s decision was upheld.

The Tribunal held that merely filing a return in Form ITR-7 does not conclusively establish that exemption under sections 11, 12, or 10(23C) was claimed or allowed. The matter requires verification of the actual claim made in the returns.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting the application solely based on past return filing issues, as the assessee had provided substantial documentary evidence, including independent verification by state authorities for its charitable activities.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the primary onus by providing documentary evidence for the share transactions. Since the Revenue failed to disprove the genuineness of the transactions or establish the assessee's involvement in price manipulation, the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) may not have considered the assessee's reply filed electronically. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after considering the reply and evidence.

The Tribunal held that the assessee discharged the initial burden by proving the donation was made through banking channels with a receipt. The Revenue failed to provide cogent material to establish that the contribution was returned in cash, thus the disallowance and addition were unsustainable.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. It set aside the CIT(A)'s ex parte order and restored the appeal for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an effective opportunity to present its case.

The Tribunal found that a detailed reply with supporting documents was submitted by the assessee but might not have been fully considered by the CIT(E). The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after considering all evidence.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred by relying on an incorrect trust deed and not properly examining the assessee's actual objects and expenditures. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh verification.