Loading ITAT cases…
122 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal condoned the 93-day delay, acknowledging the assessee's reasons as reasonable. Despite deprecating the assessee's non-chalant attitude in not filing timely submissions before the CIT(A), the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity in the interest of justice and equity.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's plea of bonafide reasons (counsel's illness) for non-compliance, considering it reasonable. While noting the assessee's failure to discharge the primary onus, the Tribunal decided to remand the case to the AO for fresh adjudication to ensure a just decision.
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee had filed the return under section 139(4) (belatedly), section 80AC of the Income Tax Act mandates that for claiming deduction under section 80P, the return must be filed within the due date specified under section 139(1). However, the assessee had filed an application under section 119(2)(b) for condonation of delay, which was pending before the CBDT. The Tribunal relied on previous judgments where similar matters were restored to the AO to await the outcome of the condonation petition.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause based on the presented evidence. The issue of addition on account of basic amenities collected was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication to verify the assessee's submissions and avoid double addition.
The Tribunal held that there was a sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, and the issue regarding PF/ESI payment was remitted to the CIT(A) for verification.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had initially not responded to AO's notices but later provided a reply to the show cause notice. The CIT(Appeals) confirmed the AO's addition. The Tribunal, considering the prayer of the assessee and in the interest of justice, decided to remit the appeal back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The ITAT noted that the assessee claimed the CIT(A) did not receive the notices. Considering this, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication to ensure justice.
The CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal for a delay of over two years in filing, without condoning the delay. The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a senior citizen aged 73, who faced health issues and was unaware of the notices. The assessee provided sufficient reasons for the delay and corrected Form 26AS information.
The Tribunal found reasonable cause for the assessee's non-appearance before the AO and held that the CIT(A) should have admitted the additional evidence. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause based on the presented evidence. The issue of addition on account of basic amenities collected was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication to verify the assessee's submissions and avoid double addition.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not paid the employees' contribution to PF and ESI within the due dates under the respective Acts. Therefore, the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. squarely applies, disallowing the deduction.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee relied on a tax practitioner for filing returns and claimed excessive deductions. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee admitted to not paying the contributions within the due dates. Therefore, the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. squarely applies, disallowing the deduction. However, the Tribunal also acknowledged the assessee's new contentions regarding the primary liability of the principal employer and the non-claim of deduction, which were not raised before the lower authorities.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee relied on a tax practitioner for filing returns and claimed excessive deductions. Following a coordinate bench's decision, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal decided to remit the issues in most appeals to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration in light of the Supreme Court's judgment. The appeal related to AY 2009-10 was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal decided to remit the issues in most appeals to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration in light of the Supreme Court's judgment. The appeal related to AY 2009-10 was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal decided to remit the issues in most appeals to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration in light of the Supreme Court's judgment. The appeal related to AY 2009-10 was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal decided to remit the issues in most appeals to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration in light of the Supreme Court's judgment. The appeal related to AY 2009-10 was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal decided to remit the issues in most appeals to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration in light of the Supreme Court's judgment. The appeal related to AY 2009-10 was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal decided to remit the issues in most appeals to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration in light of the Supreme Court's judgment. The appeal related to AY 2009-10 was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's judgment in the assessee's own case provided findings that impacted the lower authorities' decisions. Therefore, the matters were remitted to the Assessing Officer for de-novo consideration, except for one appeal.
The Tribunal decided to remit the issues in most appeals to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration in light of the Supreme Court's judgment. The appeal related to AY 2009-10 was dismissed as infructuous.