ITAT held that CPC cannot deny charitable exemption under section 11 through section 143(1) adjustment without issuing prior intimation. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination after due opportunity.
The Tribunal held that a short delay caused by hospitalisation must be condoned when supported by evidence. Procedural lapses cannot defeat substantive justice.
The case addressed whether an authority can reject registration before completion of parallel statutory processes. The Tribunal held that hurried rejection was unjustified and directed de novo adjudication.
The addition under Section 69 was remanded as the assessee claimed the source through rotation of funds. The Assessing Officer must now verify the fund flow after granting proper hearing.
The lower authorities confirmed an addition without considering permissible valuation variation. The Tribunal held that ignoring the 10% tolerance under section 50C renders the addition invalid.
The Jodhpur ITAT set aside a ₹ 8.13 lakh expense disallowance against Sarvodaya Mining Services. The Tribunal ruled additions cannot be made unless the assessee’s books of account are first rejected under Section 145.
Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer made additions without examining whether the trust followed a cash or accrual accounting system. The matter was remanded for de novo verification to ensure fair assessment under Section 10(23C)(iiiad).
The ITAT Jodhpur condoned a 163-day delay and restored a trust’s applications for provisional and permanent registration. The court found that the initial denial was due to the lack of a state trust registration certificate, which the trust has since obtained
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Jodhpur has sent a tax dispute involving Narain Dal And Oil Mills back to the lower tax authority for a re-examination of an unpaid IGST claim of Rs. 37.92 lakh.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Jodhpur has set aside an order that led to the double taxation of income, instructing the tax authorities to correct a taxpayer’s inadvertent error. The ruling distinguishes a key judicial precedent to prevent an unjust outcome.
