Loading ITAT cases…
278 orders · Page 3 of 6
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had settled the dispute with the department under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Therefore, there was no reason to keep the appeal pending.
The Tribunal has not yet decided the case on merits as the provided text only contains the grounds of appeal and procedural information. The appeals are filed against the orders of the CIT(E) rejecting the trust's applications for registration.
The Tribunal is hearing appeals against the CIT(E)'s orders rejecting the trust's applications for registration and approval. The specific grounds of appeal challenge the legality of these rejections and the consequential directions.
The Tribunal held that the ex-parte dismissal by the CIT(A) without proper opportunity and consideration of adjournment requests violated principles of natural justice. The Tribunal also noted the additional evidence submitted by the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. While acknowledging the assessee's failure to provide necessary documents on previous opportunities, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and remanded the matter back, granting one final opportunity for the assessee to present all relevant details.
The Tribunal held that the failure to respond to notices appeared to be a procedural lapse due to the trustees not being well-versed with online procedures and the accountant's age. An opportunity should be granted to the assessee to submit the necessary documents.
The Tribunal held that the rejection was primarily due to procedural lapses and not a substantive finding on the institution's genuineness. The assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) issued a show cause notice with an unreasonably short response period, violating the principles of natural justice. The CIT(E) also failed to adequately examine the evidence provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the introduction of capital in a firm is a capital investment and not a business activity. The interest expenditure incurred on borrowed funds introduced as capital cannot be related to the business expenditure of the firm or the assessee, and thus cannot be allowed as a deduction.
The Tribunal held that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue if the Assessing Officer were allowed to examine the assessee's explanation. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment. A cost of Rs. 5000/- was imposed on the assessee, to be deposited in the Prime Minister Relief Fund.
The Tribunal held that the disallowances were made on an ad-hoc/estimation basis without sufficient evidence. It was not established that the assessee had concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars, thus the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not attracted.
The Tribunal held that the audit report in Form No. 10DA was filed before the processing of the return and that Section 80JJA provides for deduction, not exemption. The Assessing Officer should have considered the report.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide the assessee an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to comply with notices and there was a delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, with a cost of Rs. 5000 imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, it was fit to set aside the matter back to the CIT(E) with a direction to provide one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was directed to produce all relevant details to avail this final opportunity.
The tribunal held that income tax authorities should assist assessees in correcting mistakes and not penalize bona fide errors. The lower authorities failed to exercise their jurisdiction properly.
The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by remanding the matter back to the Ld. CIT(E) for a fresh consideration of the application, taking into account the submissions filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that if the FDR interest income was transferred to and offered by the trust, then the corresponding TDS credit should also be allowed in the name of the trust.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had now filed all relevant materials and, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the matter back to the CIT(E) to grant one final opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that for the interests of justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and noted that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte. The Tribunal held that the matter should be remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper adjudication on merits, ensuring natural justice for the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had no objection to withdrawing the appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty granted to the assessee to revive it if the benefit of the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was denied.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal, noting that their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 was approved. The Tribunal allowed the request for withdrawal.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds of appeal on merits. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to comply with future notices without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee's wife was a joint owner of the property and had paid the disputed amount of Rs. 13,72,952/- directly to the developer through bank transfer. The source of this payment was the maturity amount of fixed deposits held by the assessee's wife, which the Tribunal found to be fully explained. Consequently, the additions were directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's application for withdrawal, noting that their application under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 was approved. The Tribunal allowed the request for withdrawal.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh verification of the opening cash balance, directing the AO to examine the certified balance sheet and cash book. If the cash balance is found to be genuinely carried forward, the addition under Section 69 will be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a small trust, was unaware of procedural formalities and failed to comply with the notices issued by the CIT(E). In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside both orders of the CIT(E), including the consequential rejection of Section 80G approval. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The CIT(E) was directed to reconsider the Section 12A application after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity to submit necessary details and documents. The CIT(E) was also directed to re-examine the Section 80G application, subject to the outcome of the Section 12A proceedings, and decide on merits. The assessee was directed to cooperate and furnish details within the prescribed time. The ratio decidendi is that procedural lapses due to lack of awareness by small trusts should be condoned by granting an opportunity for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for fresh verification of the opening cash balance, directing the AO to examine the certified balance sheet and cash book. If the cash balance is found to be genuinely carried forward, the addition under Section 69 will be deleted.
The Tribunal held that since the related Section 12A application was already remanded, the present appeal regarding Section 80G(5) approval should also be remanded to the CIT(Exemption) for proper consideration. The assessee should be granted an opportunity of hearing as per natural justice.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO. The assessee is granted a final opportunity to submit documentary evidence regarding bank deposits, PMGKY declaration, and business transactions. The AO is directed to verify these and ensure no double taxation.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without going into the merits. Given the assessee's status and the AO's order under Section 144, the matter was remanded to the AO for proper adjudication after allowing the assessee an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found multiple procedural lapses, including the department's decoding of figures without independent verification, the non-provision of the accountant's statement to the assessee (violating natural justice), and the lack of specific evidence linking the assessee to the general confession of on-money by NODPL. Furthermore, the alleged on-money payments did not align with the assessment year. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted on merits, rendering the issue of reopening academic.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a small trust, was unaware of procedural formalities and failed to comply with the notices issued by the CIT(E). In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside both orders of the CIT(E), including the consequential rejection of approval under Section 80G, and restore the matters to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The CIT(E) was directed to reconsider the Section 12A application after granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity to submit details and documents. The CIT(E) was also directed to re-examine the Section 80G application, subject to the outcome of the Section 12A proceedings, and decide on merits. The assessee was directed to cooperate and furnish necessary details. The ratio is that procedural lapses due to lack of awareness by a small trust can warrant a remand for fresh adjudication to ensure justice.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition. The Tribunal noted that the assessee's business naturally involved day-to-day cash sales, and the Assessing Officer did not doubt the stock position or banking transactions. The cash deposit was not transferred elsewhere and was used for business purposes.
The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal request and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The appeals filed by the appellant trust were accordingly dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had multiple opportunities to submit evidence but failed to do so, leading to an ex-parte order. However, considering the assessee's plea for a fresh opportunity, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for the exemption of Rs. 6,97,100/- as it falls below the revised limit of Rs. 25,00,000/- specified by the new notification. The earlier limit of Rs. 3,00,000/- was considered outdated.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging that the non-compliance was an inadvertent procedural lapse. While setting aside the CIT(E)'s orders, the Tribunal restored the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to comply with all notices.
The Tribunal, referring to a Co-ordinate Bench decision in the case of the Partnership Firm and other partners (M.A. No. 10/AHD/2022 arising out of IT(SS)A No. 196/AHD/2013 and Others dated 24-07-2024), noted that a sum of Rs. 41,00,000, which was taxable in AY 2007-08, was erroneously included in the present AY 2008-09. The Co-ordinate Bench had recalled its earlier order and directed the deletion of this Rs. 41 lakhs addition. However, the Co-ordinate Bench upheld the additions made in the hands of the three partners (including the assessee) because the assessee's own submission dated 23.12.2011 indicated that these three were the main partners who utilized funds from projects for land purchase payments. The Tribunal confirmed the protective addition made in the assessee's hands based on this finding. Consequently, the Assessing Officer was directed to revise the penalty order under Section 275(1A) of the Act, providing the assessee with a proper opportunity of hearing. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging that the non-compliance was an inadvertent procedural lapse. While setting aside the CIT(E)'s orders, the Tribunal restored the matter for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to comply with all notices.
The Tribunal condoned the 8-day delay in filing the appeal due to genuine reasons. Since the additional documents were not considered by the CIT(E), the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication after considering the revised trust deed and audited financial statements.
The Tribunal accepted the withdrawal request and dismissed the appeals as withdrawn. The appeals filed by the appellant trust were accordingly dismissed.
The Tribunal held that remanding the matter to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration of the application, taking into account the assessee's explanations and submissions, would serve the interests of justice.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee did not comply with the notices, interests of justice would be served by remanding the matter to the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to reconsider the application afresh, taking into account the submissions made by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that remanding the matter to the Ld. CIT(E) for fresh consideration of the application, taking into account the submissions filed by the assessee, would serve the interests of justice. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had filed the application within the extended due date announced by the CBDT. The Tribunal decided that remanding the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration of the application, taking into account the assessee's submissions, would serve the interests of justice.
The Tribunal condoned the 8-day delay in filing the appeal due to genuine reasons. Since the additional documents were not considered by the CIT(E), the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and remanded the matters back for fresh adjudication after considering the revised trust deed and audited financial statements.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's appeal lacked merit. The disallowance was based on the rescinded approval of the donee institution, not on investigation reports or witness statements. Therefore, the deduction was not available for the impugned Assessment Year, and the disallowance by the AO was sustained.
The Tribunal noted that the ex-parte orders were passed due to non-receipt of hearing notices. The CIT-DR had no objection to setting aside the orders if the assessee cooperated in future proceedings.