Loading ITAT cases…
44 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals, finding sufficient and bonafide cause. For AY 2017-18, it held that the intimation under section 143(1)(a) merged with the subsequent assessment order under section 143(3), directing the AO to rectify the demand. For other assessment years, the Tribunal held that if section 11 exemption is denied, the assessee trust should be treated as an Association of Persons (AOP) and taxed only on its surplus income after allowing all relevant expenditure, as disallowing expenses would amount to taxing gross receipts, not income.
The Tribunal found that the Additional CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by passing ex-parte orders without affording the assessee sufficient opportunity. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Additional CIT(A) for fresh adjudication de novo, with a directive to grant the assessee adequate opportunity to be heard for verification of TDS deduction.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s rejection of the current applications due to the technical deficiency of filing under the wrong clause. However, it granted liberty to the assessees to file fresh applications under the correct clause, directing the CIT(E) to condone the delay and consider them de novo without prejudice to the merits.
The tribunal dismissed appeals ITA Nos. 457 to 459/Asr/2024 due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing and non-prosecution by the assessee. For ITA Nos. 460 and 461/Asr/2024, the tribunal remanded the cases back to the first appellate authority to provide the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing on merits, directing the assessee to submit all supporting documentary evidence.
The tribunal dismissed appeals ITA Nos. 457 to 459/Asr/2024 due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing and non-prosecution by the assessee. For ITA Nos. 460 and 461/Asr/2024, the tribunal remanded the cases back to the first appellate authority to provide the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing on merits, directing the assessee to submit all supporting documentary evidence.
The tribunal dismissed appeals ITA Nos. 457 to 459/Asr/2024 due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing and non-prosecution by the assessee. For ITA Nos. 460 and 461/Asr/2024, the tribunal remanded the cases back to the first appellate authority to provide the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing on merits, directing the assessee to submit all supporting documentary evidence.
The tribunal dismissed appeals ITA Nos. 457 to 459/Asr/2024 due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing and non-prosecution by the assessee. For ITA Nos. 460 and 461/Asr/2024, the tribunal remanded the cases back to the first appellate authority to provide the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing on merits, directing the assessee to submit all supporting documentary evidence.
The Tribunal, invoking principles of natural justice, remanded all appeals back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to provide the assessees with a proper opportunity of hearing and consider the re-registration certificates which the assessees undertook to file. The application for 80G(5) approval was also remanded, as its approval was contingent on the 12A registration.
The ITAT condoned the delay, acknowledging technical irregularities in notice delivery and incorrect address. It remanded both cases back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions to provide proper opportunity of hearing as per Section 282, ensure correct notice delivery (including email), and for the assessees to furnish books of account and evidence for the cash deposits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals, finding sufficient and bonafide cause. For AY 2017-18, it held that the intimation under section 143(1)(a) merged with the subsequent assessment order under section 143(3), directing the AO to rectify the demand. For other assessment years, the Tribunal held that if section 11 exemption is denied, the assessee trust should be treated as an Association of Persons (AOP) and taxed only on its surplus income after allowing all relevant expenditure, as disallowing expenses would amount to taxing gross receipts, not income.
The Tribunal found the 169-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was satisfactorily explained by the assessee's mental distress due to her daughter's divorce. The Tribunal condoned this delay and remanded the penalty matter back to the CIT(A) with directions to hear it together with the pending quantum appeal for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) rejected the appeal summarily without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard, thereby violating principles of natural justice. With the consent of both parties, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication after granting adequate opportunity of being heard and considering the case on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the first appellate authority, ruling that the interest received on enhanced compensation is taxable under the head 'income from other sources' as per Section 56(2)(viii) and not as capital gains. It also affirmed the allowance of a 50% deduction under Section 57(iv) of the Act, relying on a jurisdictional High Court decision.
The ITAT condoned the delay, acknowledging technical irregularities in notice delivery and incorrect address. It remanded both cases back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions to provide proper opportunity of hearing as per Section 282, ensure correct notice delivery (including email), and for the assessees to furnish books of account and evidence for the cash deposits.
The Tribunal condoned an 83-day delay in filing the appeal due to the Chairman's medical issues. It observed that the CIT(A) had disposed of the appeal without considering the assessee's submissions or adjudicating on merits. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the matter and remanded it back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, requiring the assessee to produce all necessary books of account and documentary evidence for verification of the exemption claim.
The tribunal dismissed appeals ITA Nos. 457 to 459/Asr/2024 due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in filing and non-prosecution by the assessee. For ITA Nos. 460 and 461/Asr/2024, the tribunal remanded the cases back to the first appellate authority to provide the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing on merits, directing the assessee to submit all supporting documentary evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals, finding sufficient and bonafide cause. For AY 2017-18, it held that the intimation under section 143(1)(a) merged with the subsequent assessment order under section 143(3), directing the AO to rectify the demand. For other assessment years, the Tribunal held that if section 11 exemption is denied, the assessee trust should be treated as an Association of Persons (AOP) and taxed only on its surplus income after allowing all relevant expenditure, as disallowing expenses would amount to taxing gross receipts, not income.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s rejection of the current applications due to the technical deficiency of filing under the wrong clause. However, it granted liberty to the assessees to file fresh applications under the correct clause, directing the CIT(E) to condone the delay and consider them de novo without prejudice to the merits.
The Tribunal found that the notices and the appellate order were indeed sent to a wrong email ID. Concluding that the assessee was not at fault for non-receipt, the Tribunal condoned the delay of 238 days. The matter was then remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring the assessee is provided with a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the Additional CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by passing ex-parte orders without affording the assessee sufficient opportunity. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Additional CIT(A) for fresh adjudication de novo, with a directive to grant the assessee adequate opportunity to be heard for verification of TDS deduction.
The Tribunal, invoking principles of natural justice, remanded all appeals back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to provide the assessees with a proper opportunity of hearing and consider the re-registration certificates which the assessees undertook to file. The application for 80G(5) approval was also remanded, as its approval was contingent on the 12A registration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals, finding sufficient and bonafide cause. For AY 2017-18, it held that the intimation under section 143(1)(a) merged with the subsequent assessment order under section 143(3), directing the AO to rectify the demand. For other assessment years, the Tribunal held that if section 11 exemption is denied, the assessee trust should be treated as an Association of Persons (AOP) and taxed only on its surplus income after allowing all relevant expenditure, as disallowing expenses would amount to taxing gross receipts, not income.
The Tribunal found discrepancies in the VAT transit forms compared to the seller's VAT numbers on the sale invoices. Due to these newly identified discrepancies, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to clarify.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was void ab initio due to a violation of natural justice, as the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the witness whose statement formed the basis of the addition. The Tribunal also found the show cause notice period to be unreasonably short.
The tribunal condoned the filing delay and, emphasizing principles of natural justice, remanded both matters back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The AO is directed to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessees and issue a show cause notice before passing a reasoned order. This decision was supported by the Delhi High Court judgment in "Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. vs. Union of India" regarding the right to personal hearing.
The tribunal condoned the filing delay and, emphasizing principles of natural justice, remanded both matters back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The AO is directed to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessees and issue a show cause notice before passing a reasoned order. This decision was supported by the Delhi High Court judgment in "Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd. vs. Union of India" regarding the right to personal hearing.
The Tribunal observed that both the AO and CIT(A)/NFAC passed ex-parte orders without granting adequate opportunity to the assessee, thereby violating natural justice. Citing a Delhi High Court judgment, the Tribunal set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, with directions to issue a show cause notice and provide the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not issue proper notice of hearing to the assessee's e-mail ID, thereby denying an opportunity to explain the SBN deposit with books of account. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with directions for the assessee to produce all necessary documentary evidence and books of account.
The Tribunal noted the extensive powers vested in the PCIT/CIT under Section 12AB and the proviso to Section 12A(1)(ac)(vi) to condone delays in filing applications for registration, including those for converting provisional to regular registration. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration of the application, with a direction for the assessee to file a necessary condonation application.
The Tribunal, invoking principles of natural justice, remanded all appeals back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(E) was directed to provide the assessees with a proper opportunity of hearing and consider the re-registration certificates which the assessees undertook to file. The application for 80G(5) approval was also remanded, as its approval was contingent on the 12A registration.
The Tribunal remanded both appeals back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The CIT(E) is directed to review the application for registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) in light of the amended trust deed and dispose of the 80G(5) approval application simultaneously. The assessee is required to cooperate and provide necessary documentary evidence.
The Tribunal remanded both appeals back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The CIT(E) is directed to review the application for registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) in light of the amended trust deed and dispose of the 80G(5) approval application simultaneously. The assessee is required to cooperate and provide necessary documentary evidence.
The Tribunal considered a bank certificate and relevant Gazette Notifications, specifically Notification No. 2774 SO 3544(E) dated 24.11.2016, which extended the legal tender status of SBNs for certain transactions, including mobile top-ups, until December 15, 2016. Upon review, it was found that only Rs. 6,000/- was deposited after this extended period (between 17.12.2016 to 21.12.2016). Therefore, the addition was restricted to Rs. 6,000/-, and the assessee was granted consequential relief for the remaining amount.
The Tribunal condoned the 146-day delay, finding no willful default or neglect given the assessee's explanation of being abroad. The case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. The AO is directed to verify the income disclosed in the original return u/s 139(1) against Form 26AS and provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits and that the critical issue of the absence of a Document Identification Number (DIN) in the assessment order, as per CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, was raised for the first time. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the merits, including the DIN issue, ensuring the assessee is given a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal remanded the case back to the ld. first appellate authority for adjudication of all grounds on merits. The assessee was directed to file all documentary evidence and submissions and fully cooperate in the appellate proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated without proper application of mind by the AO and that the assessee was denied a crucial opportunity to cross-examine the witness whose statement formed the basis of the additions. Furthermore, the addition resulted in double taxation as the sales were already included in the gross turnover.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) failed to provide proper opportunity of hearing by not sending notices to the assessee's registered email ID, only through the ITBA portal. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to cooperate and provide all necessary evidence.
The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's estimation of gross turnover based on impounded materials and the partner's statement, finding them more reliable than the subsequently produced books of accounts. The profit was directed to be calculated at 8% of the estimated gross sales.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation, as the 'surviving period' for issuing the notice expired before it was issued. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal without adhering to principles of natural justice, as the assessee was not given an opportunity to explain the delay. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) with a direction to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the delay and submit documentary evidence. If the reasons are found to be sufficient and acceptable, the CIT(A) shall admit the appeal and dispose of it on merits.