Loading ITAT cases…
60 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had issued notices, but the assessee did not respond. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction for the assessee to be cooperative.
The Tribunal found that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) acted in a hurried manner, violating the principles of natural justice by not providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The order passed under Section 263 was deemed bad in law.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For the quantum appeal, it was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits after affording an adequate opportunity of hearing. The penalty appeals were allowed as a consequence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's claim of improper service. However, due to the assessee's non-cooperative conduct and ex-parte orders at both the lower levels, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that procedural law is meant to advance justice and technicalities should not override substantial justice. It noted that the CBDT circular allows for condonation of delay in such cases.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's explanation. The Tribunal restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to be cooperative.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. It further held that since the quantum appeal for the same assessment year was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, the penalty order does not survive and is therefore deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to delete the addition. The Tribunal found that the bank account was solely owned by the assessee's wife, and the assessee was merely an authorized signatory with a different PAN.
The Tribunal held that the AO made an ad hoc disallowance without identifying specific handmade/unsigned bills or providing tangible evidence of non-business expenditure. Therefore, the disallowance was deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had indeed filed an appeal against the assessment order, which was pending. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication after deciding the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal in the interest of justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a direction for the assessee to be cooperative.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the assessee's non-cooperative conduct, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits to ensure principles of natural justice are followed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that the assessment order was also passed ex-parte. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merits, with a direction for the assessee to cooperate.
The ITAT noted the assessee's non-cooperative conduct but restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in the interest of justice. The assessee was directed to be diligent and cooperative.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For the quantum appeal, it was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits after affording an adequate opportunity of hearing. The penalty appeals were allowed as a consequence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. For the quantum appeal, it was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication on merits after affording an adequate opportunity of hearing. The penalty appeals were allowed as a consequence.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file. The assessee is to be given an opportunity to seek condonation of the delay.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the additions because the Assessing Officer failed to dispose of the assessee's objections to the reopening notice before passing the assessment order, violating principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the CIT(A) had exhaustively examined the documentary evidence and found that shares were issued by conversion of unsecured loans, not as new capital receipts.
The Tribunal held that the incorrect selection of a sub-clause in the application was a technical error, especially given the new regime and automated system. The matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the incorrect selection of a sub-clause in the application was a technical error, especially given the new regime and automated system. The matter was remanded to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the application, citing a coordinate bench decision and a CBDT circular. The matter was remanded to the CIT(E) to decide the application on its merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) rightly deleted the additions because the Assessing Officer failed to dispose of the assessee's objections to the reopening notice before passing the assessment order, violating principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the CIT(A) had exhaustively examined the documentary evidence and found that shares were issued by conversion of unsecured loans, not as new capital receipts.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was bad in law because the approval obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) was invalid. This was because more than three years had elapsed since the end of the relevant assessment year, and the approval should have been sought from a higher authority.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act was bad in law as it was issued for mere verification and not to show cause why a notice under Section 148 should not be issued. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that since the consequential assessment proceedings, which led to the penalty, had become non-est due to the revisional order being set aside, the penalty order had no basis. The ITAT accordingly set aside the order sustaining the penalty.
The Tribunal found that the profit of Rs. 32,75,200/- was earned on behalf of clients and adjusted against their losses. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to verify the distribution of this amount to clients.
The tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The tribunal granted another opportunity to the assessee to appear and make submissions before the CIT(A).
The tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The tribunal granted another opportunity to the assessee to appear and make submissions before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to produce fee receipts to substantiate the cash deposits. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification and fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that procedural defects like quoting wrong provisions or minor delays should not bar the consideration of an application for registration, especially when the intention is to advance justice. Technicalities should not override substantive justice.
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, citing the interest of justice. The assessee was directed to be cooperative in future proceedings.
The Tribunal held that procedural delays should not bar substantive justice and that applications for registration should not be denied on technical grounds of delay. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration on merits.
The Tribunal held that applications for registration/approval cannot be denied merely on technical grounds of delay or quoting wrong provisions. Procedural rules are tools for justice and should not obstruct substantial justice.
The Tribunal held that procedural defects like quoting wrong provisions or minor delays should not bar the consideration of an application for registration, especially when the intent is to advance justice. The CIT(E)'s rejection based solely on these technicalities was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic, unreasoned, and a violation of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after considering all submissions and the valuation report.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT held that the notice issued under Section 148 was bad in law due to an invalid sanction under Section 151. The sanctioning authority showed a non-application of mind, making the subsequent assessment order void. Therefore, the assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that procedural delay should not defeat substantial justice and that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer under the proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Act, as it appeared the assessment was treated as a best judgment assessment under section 144. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s interpretation that only purely charitable institutions are eligible for 80G approval is incorrect. Section 80G(5B) allows for religious expenditure up to 5% of total income. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not properly verify the extent of religious expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment framed without issuing a notice under Section 143(2) in response to a belatedly filed return is bad in law and void ab initio. Therefore, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had substantively complied with Section 54 by investing in a new residential property before the extended due date of filing the return. The requirement of depositing in the Capital Gains Account Scheme is a procedural condition and not a substantive one that overrides timely investment.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not claim the capital expenditure on fixed assets as application of income, Section 11(6) was not attracted. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to claim depreciation on these assets.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 on 31.07.2022 was barred by limitation, as per the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act on 30.07.2022 was barred by limitation, as it was issued beyond the period prescribed by the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Rajeev Bansal. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the order rejecting the Section 80G(5) application was consequential to the Section 12A registration. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 610 days in filing the first appeal before the CIT(A) by the legal heir, considering the circumstances. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to be cooperative, and the CIT(A) was instructed to ensure principles of natural justice are followed.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the quantum appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for a decision on merits.