Loading ITAT cases…
235 orders · Page 2 of 5
The Tribunal held that interest income from cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). For interest from nationalized banks, the matter was set aside to the AO to consider only the net interest income after allowing for expenses.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by remanding the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The CIT(E) is to consider the applications along with the submissions made by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that rejecting the application after only one opportunity violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(E) to allow another opportunity for the assessee to comply and be heard.
The Tribunal found that only one opportunity for hearing was provided, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(E) to allow another opportunity for hearing and compliance.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present their case. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) had provided only one opportunity for hearing and compliance, which was insufficient to satisfy the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the AO erred in not considering the income determined under Section 143(1)(a) while computing the under-reported income for penalty purposes. The AO was directed to re-compute the under-reported income by allowing set-off of the income determined under Section 143(1)(a) and then re-compute the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by remanding the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The CIT(E) is to consider the applications along with the submissions made by the assessee.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee provided some evidence, details related to transportation bills and some purchase/sales bills were missing. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to factually demonstrate that the assessee received an accommodation entry. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was not supplied with the statement of a key witness and cross-examination was not allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be granted another opportunity to present evidence, as the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex parte. The penalty appeal was also restored.
The Tribunal held that the requirement of filing Form 67 is directory, not mandatory, and the assessee can make additional claims before appellate authorities. Therefore, the denial of foreign tax credit on account of delayed filing of Form 67 was not justified.
The Tribunal held that rejecting an application after only one opportunity violates principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard and make compliance.
The Tribunal held that the requirement of filing Form 67 is directory, not mandatory, and the assessee can make additional claims before appellate authorities. Therefore, the denial of foreign tax credit on account of delayed filing of Form 67 was not justified.
The Tribunal held that rejecting an application after only one opportunity violates principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard and make compliance.
The Tribunal held that the requirement of filing Form 67 is directory, not mandatory, and the assessee can make additional claims before appellate authorities. Therefore, the denial of foreign tax credit on account of delayed filing of Form 67 was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the requirement of filing Form 67 is directory, not mandatory, and the assessee can make additional claims before appellate authorities. Therefore, the denial of foreign tax credit on account of delayed filing of Form 67 was not justified.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for the unsecured loan amount, remanding it to the AO to give the assessee an opportunity to prove its genuineness. The appeal for sundry creditors was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not examine the bank statement and related details provided by the assessee. Therefore, the issue needs to be verified by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and directed the CIT(E) to grant another opportunity to the assessee to produce required documents, subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- cost. The CIT(E) is to re-adjudicate the matter thereafter.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without a proper adjudication on merits, despite the assessee's request for another opportunity. The Tribunal decided to set aside the matter to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not properly examined the evidence provided by the assessee regarding certain deductions. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), stating that the assessee had sufficient cause due to its ignorance of the law and relevant judicial pronouncements. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer did not properly examine the bank statements and supporting details provided by the assessee regarding the donation. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that a disallowance under Section 36(1)(iii), even if confirmed, does not automatically constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for this specific disallowance cannot be sustained.
The tribunal held that rejecting an application after only one opportunity violates principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was set aside to allow the assessee another opportunity to be heard and make necessary compliances.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the assessee's age and the circumstances leading to the delay, and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing. This was done to provide the assessee with a due opportunity of hearing, given the substantial addition made to her income.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, following coordinate bench rulings that sales tax incentives/subsidies granted to encourage industrial growth are capital in nature and thus not taxable. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) orders were ex-parte and that the assessment order was also an ex-parte best judgment order. In the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), stating that the assessee had sufficient cause due to its ignorance of the law and relevant judicial pronouncements. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) orders were ex-parte and that the assessment order was also an ex-parte best judgment order. In the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), stating that the assessee had sufficient cause due to its ignorance of the law and relevant judicial pronouncements. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to the AO regarding the share transactions. The CIT(A)'s reliance on a previous case was deemed misplaced due to a lack of identical facts and evidence. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for further verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessment was framed by an AO without valid jurisdiction, rendering it void. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the reassessment notice issued by an incompetent authority was quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) orders were ex-parte and that the assessment order was also an ex-parte best judgment order. In the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has the power to give directions under Section 150 read with Section 251 of the Act. However, the direction to reopen the case was modified to direct the AO to exercise his powers of reopening for considering the taxability of the investment as per law.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), stating that the assessee had sufficient cause due to its ignorance of the law and relevant judicial pronouncements. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) orders were ex-parte and that the assessment order was also an ex-parte best judgment order. In the interest of justice, the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal found that the rejection of the 12AB registration was primarily due to non-compliance and lack of opportunity. For the 80G approval, its rejection was consequential to the 12AB registration issue. Therefore, both matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to furnish documents for 12A registration. Since the 80G approval was rejected based on the 12A registration, that matter was also restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and restored the matters to his file for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to furnish necessary documents and substantiate its claim for both registration and approval.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(E). The impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh decision.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee's lack of knowledge and reliance on a negligent consultant. The Tribunal held that the interest of justice requires the assessee to be given an opportunity of hearing, especially since the assessment was ex-parte.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present its case before the CIT(E). The impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the CIT(E) for fresh decision.
The Tribunal restored both matters to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to furnish documents and substantiate its claims. The 80G approval was deemed consequential to the 12AB registration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on technical grounds without adjudicating the substantive issues. While the assessee was also not diligent, the matter required fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored both matters to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to furnish documents and substantiate its claims. The 80G approval was deemed consequential to the 12AB registration.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and restored the matters to his file for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to furnish necessary documents and substantiate its claim for both registration and approval.