Loading ITAT cases…
136 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal held that the assessee was prevented from sufficient cause in filing the appeals in time. Therefore, the CIT(A) was directed to condone the delay and decide the appeals afresh.
The ITAT found that the NFAC had decided the issue ex parte without adjudicating on merits. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeals in time. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the failure of the AO to strike off the irrelevant portion in the penalty notice, thus not specifying the exact offense, is fatal to the penalty proceedings. This is based on High Court judgments that emphasize precision in such notices for fairness and to avoid ambiguity.
The Tribunal held that the failure of the AO to strike off the irrelevant portion in the penalty notice, thus not specifying the exact offense, is fatal to the penalty proceedings. This is based on High Court judgments that emphasize precision in such notices for fairness and to avoid ambiguity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the reasons provided by the assessee. The appeal was restored to the NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits, ensuring a fair hearing for the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the order of the NFAC and restored the appeal to the NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits, providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the NFAC's decision was ex parte and lacked independent findings. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was prevented from sufficient cause in filing the appeals in time. Therefore, the CIT(A) was directed to condone the delay and decide the appeals afresh.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented from filing the appeal in time due to sufficient cause. Therefore, the CIT(A) was directed to condone the delay and decide the appeal afresh.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It restored the appeal to the file of the lower appellate authority for de novo adjudication on merits, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented from filing the appeal in time due to sufficient cause. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was admitted for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were explained by the assessee's disclosed professional receipts and that taxing them again would amount to double taxation. It also ruled that the assessee was entitled to depreciation on the solar plant as it was installed and used for business purposes.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable due to the low tax effect. No exceptions were brought on record by the Revenue to justify the appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, upon the assessee's application for withdrawal due to opting for the 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme', the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It directed the AO to adopt a net profit percentage of 6% on gross receipts, considering the destruction of business records by fire, and deleted the addition under Section 69A.
The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and materials. It acknowledged that the assessee is engaged in wholesale and retail trading of medicine and pharmacy goods in a remote area of Kashmir. The Tribunal found that estimating the net profit at 8% on total sales of Rs. 1.78 crores was not justified. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to estimate the net profit from the medicine business at a fair rate of 4% of the gross sales of Rs. 1.78 crores. The amount determined at this rate would be charged to tax at normal rates. The assessee is entitled to consequential relief. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in cancelling the registration without issuing a show-cause notice, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found evidence of charitable activities like running an orphanage and decided to remand the matter for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not legally justified in dismissing the appeal in limine under Section 249(3) of the Act for the delay arising out of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal found that the period in question was covered under TOLA and therefore condoned the delay, directing the appeal to be admitted. Regarding the merits of the disallowances, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had not participated in the assessment proceedings nor before the CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to adjudicate the grounds of appeal on merits. The assessee was directed to file all documentary evidence and submissions in support of their contentions and to fully cooperate in the appellate proceedings. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal acknowledged the legal tenability of the assessee's claim under Section 11(1A) for deemed application of capital gains. However, it agreed with the Revenue that the AO should be given an opportunity to verify the authenticity of the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in cancelling the registration without issuing a show-cause notice, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found evidence of charitable activities like running an orphanage and decided to remand the matter for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's claim of non-receipt of notices. The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the assessee's age and circumstances. On merits, the Tribunal deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer, following various precedents that accepted sale proceeds of agricultural land as the source of cash deposits, especially when a nexus was established.
The Tribunal found that the cash deposit of Rs. 4 lakhs was covered by the disclosed gross sales under Section 44AD. Since no addition was made regarding the original reasons for reopening, the standalone addition was deleted.
The Tribunal found that while rejection of books was not entirely justified due to the nature of the liquor business, the declared profit margins were volatile. Therefore, a net profit rate of 0.55% on net sales was deemed appropriate for equity.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's educational activities are charitable and not restricted solely to Army personnel's children, as civilians are also admitted. The CIT(Exemption) failed to issue a show cause notice before rejection. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the rejection was arbitrary as the assessee was not given an opportunity to explain any shortfall and no show cause notice was issued. The low quantum of activities alone cannot be a ground for rejection.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had passed the order without giving the assessee adequate opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after providing a hearing.
The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(E) passed the order ex-parte without giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. In the interest of justice, the issue was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for a decision on merit after providing a hearing opportunity.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(Exemptions) to provide the assessee with an opportunity of being heard and decide the matter on merit. The assessee was directed to submit all required documents.
The Tribunal held that making donations to other charitable institutions is permissible under the amended provisions of the Act. It also noted that the CIT(E) did not provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard and failed to call for further information before rejecting the application.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) passed the order without providing adequate opportunity of hearing and without properly appreciating the facts. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had not properly appreciated the facts and that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had not properly appreciated the facts and that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(Exemptions) to provide the assessee with an opportunity of being heard on merit.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) had summarily rejected the application without examining the assessee's objects and merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity of being heard.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the order under Section 263 was passed ex-parte without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the PCIT for fresh consideration after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that making donations to other charitable institutions is permissible under the amended provisions of the Act. It also noted that the CIT(E) did not provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard and failed to call for further information before rejecting the application.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal as requested. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the interest of justice would be served by remanding the matter back to the CIT(E). The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the order was passed ex-parte without a proper opportunity of hearing due to notices being sent to an incorrect email address. The Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to allow one more opportunity to the assessee to explain its case by filing all necessary documents and evidences. The Tribunal also stipulated that any future notices should be issued to the email ID available in the official record. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, indicating that the substantive issue of registration was not decided on merits but was being sent back for procedural compliance. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the matter was remanded for a fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(E) passed the order ex-parte without giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. In the interest of justice, the issue was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for a decision on merit after providing a hearing opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the rejection was arbitrary as the assessee was not given an opportunity to explain any shortfall and no show cause notice was issued. The low quantum of activities alone cannot be a ground for rejection.
The Tribunal found that while rejection of books was not entirely justified due to the nature of the liquor business, the declared profit margins were volatile. Therefore, a net profit rate of 0.55% on net sales was deemed appropriate for equity.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) had summarily rejected the application without examining the assessee's objects and merits. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to provide an opportunity of being heard and decide the issues on merit.
The Tribunal found that the assessee should be given another opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with a hearing on merit.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) passed the order without affording the assessee an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with a chance to present their case on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to provide an opportunity of being heard and decide the issues on merit.