ITAT Rajkot Judgments — June 2026

The Tribunal restored all 40 appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the trusts with an opportunity to present their cases, submit additional evidence, and ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal restored all 40 appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the trusts with an opportunity to present their cases, submit additional evidence, and ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal restored all 40 appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the trusts with an opportunity to present their cases, submit additional evidence, and ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal restored all 40 appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the trusts with an opportunity to present their cases, submit additional evidence, and ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal restored all 40 appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the trusts with an opportunity to present their cases, submit additional evidence, and ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal restored all 40 appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the trusts with an opportunity to present their cases, submit additional evidence, and ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal restored all 40 appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the trusts with an opportunity to present their cases, submit additional evidence, and ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal restored all 40 appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the trusts with an opportunity to present their cases, submit additional evidence, and ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal restored all 40 appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the trusts with an opportunity to present their cases, submit additional evidence, and ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal restored all 40 appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the trusts with an opportunity to present their cases, submit additional evidence, and ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal restored all 40 appeals back to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the trusts with an opportunity to present their cases, submit additional evidence, and ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.

The tribunal permitted the assessee-trusts to withdraw their appeals. Consequently, all the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The tribunal found that the rejection was not sustainable and restored the matters to the CIT (Exemption). The CIT was directed to re-examine the applications after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard and submit all relevant documents.

The Tribunal held that the penalty under Section 271D was invalid because the Assessing Officer did not record any satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings during the assessment order. This failure to record satisfaction renders the penalty unsustainable, as per Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court decisions.

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessees were not given sufficient opportunity to be heard. The matters were restored to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessees were not given sufficient opportunity to be heard. The matters were restored to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessees were not given sufficient opportunity to be heard. The matters were restored to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessees were not given sufficient opportunity to be heard. The matters were restored to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessees were not given sufficient opportunity to be heard. The matters were restored to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessees were not given sufficient opportunity to be heard. The matters were restored to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessees were not given sufficient opportunity to be heard. The matters were restored to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessees were not given sufficient opportunity to be heard. The matters were restored to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessees were not given sufficient opportunity to be heard. The matters were restored to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessees were not given sufficient opportunity to be heard. The matters were restored to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessees were not given sufficient opportunity to be heard. The matters were restored to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessees were not given sufficient opportunity to be heard. The matters were restored to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings under Section 271D cannot survive if the Assessing Officer has not recorded satisfaction for initiating such proceedings in the assessment order, especially when the assessment was completed without additions.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000 per appeal to be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000 per appeal to be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000 per appeal to be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessees were not given sufficient opportunity to be heard. The matters were restored to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had not adequately considered the assessee's documents and explanations. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration after granting an adequate opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessees were not given sufficient opportunity to be heard. The matters were restored to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessees were not given sufficient opportunity to be heard. The matters were restored to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessees were not given sufficient opportunity to be heard. The matters were restored to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessees were not given sufficient opportunity to be heard. The matters were restored to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessees were not given sufficient opportunity to be heard. The matters were restored to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessees were not given sufficient opportunity to be heard. The matters were restored to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessees were not given sufficient opportunity to be heard. The matters were restored to the CIT(E) for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal found that the assessee could not furnish documents due to the negligence of their consultant and granted one more opportunity. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as no objection was raised by the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The Tribunal found that the assessee could not furnish documents due to the negligence of their consultant and granted one more opportunity. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance by the CPC was arbitrary and unsustainable. It found that the assessee had complied with the conditions for exemption under Section 11, including filing Form 10 for accumulation within the due date.

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, noting that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity to be heard and that the CIT(A)'s order was passed without considering the assessee's submissions.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated beyond the prescribed limitation period under Section 149 of the Act. Since the escaped income was less than Rs. 50 lakhs, the extended period of limitation was not applicable, rendering the notice invalid.

The Tribunal held that there was no conscious concealment of income as the rental income was recorded in the books and the omission was a bonafide mistake. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing a previous decision in a related case where similar delays were condoned due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control and mistakes by the tax consultant. The Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing a previous decision in a related case where similar delays were condoned due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control and mistakes by the tax consultant. The Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, citing a previous decision in a related case where similar delays were condoned due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control and mistakes by the tax consultant. The Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.