Loading ITAT cases…
74 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an appeal before the FAA and responded to notices. The FAA's order was considered cryptic for not considering the assessee's submissions. The Tribunal decided to remit the issues back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 133 days in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities and the mistake of the counsel. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 133 days in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities and the mistake of the counsel. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the non-filing of the audit report in Form 10B along with the return of income is a procedural omission, not a substantive one, and therefore should not be an impediment to claiming exemption under Section 11. The Tribunal relied on various High Court and ITAT decisions that treated this as a procedural lapse.
The tribunal observed that the issue regarding cash deposits during demonetization needs to be examined in light of CBDT circulars. The assessee was directed to provide all relevant details to substantiate their claim, as the burden lies on them to prove the genuineness of the deposits.
The Tribunal noted that the First Appellate Authority's order was not a speaking order. Considering the rival submissions and the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration and decision. The assessee was directed to file necessary documents and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. CIT & Anr. held that the term "member" in section 80P(2)(a)(i) should be construed in light of the definition in the concerned state Co-operative Societies Act. If nominal/associate members are not prohibited, income earned from credit facilities to them also qualifies for deduction. Furthermore, section 80P(4) specifically excludes only co-operative banks engaged in general banking business. The Tribunal also referred to the case of Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. for deduction under section 80P(2)(d).
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 133 days in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities and the mistake of the counsel. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 133 days in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), citing the principle of substantial justice over technicalities and the mistake of the counsel. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) was due to bona fide reasons, as the assessee was pursuing an alternative remedy. The Tribunal noted that CBDT circulars allowing condonation of delay for up to 365 days were not considered by the authorities. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) was condoned. On merits, the Tribunal observed that filing of Form 10B is directory and not mandatory, especially when the audit report is available and exemption under Section 11 cannot be denied if other legal requirements are met.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the appeal should be remanded to the Ld.CIT(A) again. The Ld.CIT(A) is directed to strictly follow the Tribunal's previous directions, verify documents, call for a remand report, and provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had cryptically considered the issue without adjudicating independent grounds and it was unclear if the assessee was given an opportunity of being heard. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to pass a detailed order.
The Tribunal noted that the additional ground raised by the assessee was legal in nature and admitted it for adjudication. The Tribunal referred to Section 153(3) and 153(4) of the Act, regarding time limits for fresh assessments after set-aside orders and references to TPO, and concluded that the assessment order was barred by time.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merits. In the interest of justice and equity, the Tribunal decided to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to represent its case.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench decision, held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P on interest income earned from cooperative banks. However, the issue of proportionate deduction based on members and non-members, and the applicability of certain circulars, required further examination by the AO.
The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had not examined the issue in light of relevant circulars and notifications concerning demonetization. Given the assessee's failure to respond to FAA notices and the AO's addition based on estimation, the Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the AO for a fresh verification. The AO was directed to examine the cash deposits in light of standard operating procedures and specific instructions issued by the CBDT during the demonetization period.
The Tribunal held that the agricultural income of Rs.4,65,000 earned up to 10.11.2016 was justified. Furthermore, considering the assessee's age, lack of banking facilities, and nature of agricultural activity, her life savings of Rs.7,85,000 were deemed justified.
The Tribunal condoned the 54-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to technical glitches with the income tax portal and the CIT(A)'s short notice. The Tribunal remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench decision, held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P on interest income earned from cooperative banks. However, the issue of proportionate deduction based on members and non-members, and the applicability of certain circulars, required further examination by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be denied the benefit of exemption under section 11(2) of the Act if Form 10 was filed manually before the due date of filing the income tax return. The Tribunal drew support from a previous order of the Tribunal in a similar case.
The Tribunal, following a coordinate bench decision, held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P on interest income earned from cooperative banks. However, the issue of proportionate deduction based on members and non-members, and the applicability of certain circulars, required further examination by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for LTCG exemption should be allowed as the transactions were supported by documents and fulfilled the conditions under Section 10(38). Crucially, the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine third parties whose statements formed the basis of the AO's adverse findings, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's business, which involved hiring transport vehicles, had previous assessment years where net profit rates of 8.24% and 8% were accepted. Considering the expenses and the prior year's accepted rate, the Tribunal directed the AO to adopt a net profit rate of 8.24% on the gross receipts.
The Tribunal observed that there was a bona fide reason for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and that the assessee had filed a Section 154 application prior to the appeal. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee one more opportunity before the Assessing Officer.