Loading ITAT cases…
243 orders · Page 2 of 5
The Tribunal condoned the 99-day delay in filing the appeal, citing the principles of substantial justice over technicalities, and accepted the explanation that the delay was due to issues with the chartered accountant. The case was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had decided the issue ex-parte despite giving opportunities to the assessee. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, imposing a cost of Rs. 5,000/- for each assessment year.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the Ld.CIT(A) erred by sending notices to an email ID which the assessee had specifically requested not to be used, thus denying a proper opportunity.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) noted that the AO had passed orders under Section 144 without giving the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing. Finding sufficient cause for the assessee's failure to provide details and deeming the explanation bonafide, the CIT(A) restored the appeals to the AO for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee an opportunity to represent their case. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) noted that the AO had passed orders under Section 144 without giving the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing. Finding sufficient cause for the assessee's failure to provide details and deeming the explanation bonafide, the CIT(A) restored the appeals to the AO for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee an opportunity to represent their case. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay, acknowledging the bona fide reasons for non-compliance and non-appearance due to health and procedural unfamiliarity. It set aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee receives a reasonable opportunity to present her case. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal decided that the assessment orders passed under Section 153A were bad in law as no incriminating material was found during the search. The additions were made based on estimations without rejecting the audited books of accounts.
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) noted that the AO had passed orders under Section 144 without giving the assessee a proper opportunity of hearing. Finding sufficient cause for the assessee's failure to provide details and deeming the explanation bonafide, the CIT(A) restored the appeals to the AO for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee an opportunity to represent their case. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal on technical grounds. The Tribunal found that the assessee had attached an 'online service of orders – letter dated 28.08.2024' with Form-35, which, in the Tribunal's view, constituted the order passed under section 154 of the Act rejecting the assessee's rectification application. This document was admittedly attached to Form-35, and the assessee had also provided the same date in Form-35. The Tribunal concluded that the Ld.CIT(A)'s interpretation of this document as merely a letter, rather than an order, was an error. Therefore, the dismissal of the appeal for technical reasons was incorrect. The Tribunal directed the Ld.CIT(A) to consider the assessee's appeal on its merits. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The ITAT admitted the additional evidence, noting it was crucial for deciding the case. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that the evidence went to the root of the dispute and was necessary for the interest of justice.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record proper satisfaction regarding the correctness of the assessee's claim before invoking Rule 8D. Consequently, the disallowance made under Section 14A was deleted, except for a nominal amount of Rs. 1,725.
The Tribunal held that the AO had failed to follow the proper procedure for reopening the case by not granting the minimum statutory time as per Section 148A(b) of the Act. Respectfully following the jurisdictional High Court's judgment, the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record proper satisfaction regarding the correctness of the assessee's claim before invoking Rule 8D. Consequently, the disallowance made under Section 14A was deleted, except for a nominal amount of Rs. 1,725.
The Tribunal noted the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal and the assessee's submission regarding an oversight. Considering the facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the jurisdictional CIT(A) for fresh consideration after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record proper satisfaction regarding the correctness of the assessee's claim before invoking Rule 8D. Consequently, the disallowance made under Section 14A was deleted, except for a nominal amount of Rs. 1,725.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for HRA and conveyance allowance exemption as the claim was supported by requisite documents and ignored by the CIT(A). Regarding the FTC, the Tribunal remitted the issue back to the AO for verification, following a coordinate bench's decision on a similar issue.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to substantiate that it has carried out charitable activities for charitable purposes and that these activities are genuine.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, stating that it was beyond the assessee's control and that granting an opportunity in the interest of justice would allow the school to function smoothly. The CIT(E) was directed to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record proper satisfaction regarding the correctness of the assessee's claim before invoking Rule 8D. Consequently, the disallowance made under Section 14A was deleted, except for a nominal amount of Rs. 1,725.
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to record proper satisfaction regarding the correctness of the assessee's claim before invoking Rule 8D. Consequently, the disallowance made under Section 14A was deleted, except for a nominal amount of Rs. 1,725.
The Tribunal held that the genuineness of the activity, not the quantum of expenditure, is relevant for granting registration. The Tribunal also noted that the term 'activities' in Section 12AB includes 'proposed activities'.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) was not sustainable and deserved to be quashed. The primary issue was the validity of the approval obtained for reopening the assessment. The Tribunal noted that the notice under section 148 was issued on 06.04.2022 for A.Y. 2018-19. As per section 151 of the Act, if three years or less have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, approval is required from the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. However, if more than three years have elapsed, approval must be obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner. In this case, more than three years had elapsed from the end of A.Y. 2018-19, and the approval was obtained from the PCIT, Bengaluru-3, which is incorrect. Therefore, there was no proper approval obtained by the AO for reopening the assessment as per the provisions of section 151 of the Act. The Tribunal quashed the assessment order on this ground, allowing the assessee's appeal. No other issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to produce necessary documents and evidence to establish the genuineness of its activities. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Exemptions) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the CPC violated the principles of natural justice by passing the intimation under Section 143(1) without providing the mandatory 30-day period for the assessee to respond to the notice. This failure renders the intimation invalid.
The Tribunal restored both appeals to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to re-examine the assessee's explanations, verify the genuineness of activities, issue show-cause notices if necessary, and pass reasoned orders.
The Tribunal restored both appeals to the file of the CIT(E). The CIT(E) was directed to re-examine the assessee's explanations, verify the genuineness of activities, issue show-cause notices if necessary, and pass reasoned orders.
The ITAT condoned the remaining 164-day delay, relying on the Supreme Court's precedent for condonation of delay. The tribunal remitted the matter of depreciation disallowance back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, directing to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing and for the assessee to produce all necessary documents.
The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given another opportunity to produce necessary documents and evidence to establish the genuineness of its activities. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Exemptions) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had gross receipts of Rs. 4,00,53,090 and expenditure of Rs. 2,95,14,061, leading to a claimed exemption of Rs. 1,05,39,029. The Tribunal noted that the CPC, while processing the return, considered the expenditure of Rs. 2,95,14,061 as taxable income. The Tribunal observed that there was an error in the assessee's return filing, where instead of mentioning the gross total income, the excess of income over expenditure was stated. Consequently, the expenditure was treated as taxable income. The Tribunal held that the issue before the CIT(A) was primarily about the entitlement to deduction under Section 10(23B) and the correct amount thereof. The correct deduction should be Rs. 1,05,39,029. The other findings of the CIT(A) regarding the allowability of the deduction were deemed unwarranted. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the entire issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) for correct computation of the assessee's income, directing the assessee to show the correct computation before the AO. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had submitted substantial details before the CIT(A) that were not available to the AO. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-cooperation despite these submissions and an affidavit explaining non-receipt of notices.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the delay condonation application without considering the Supreme Court's order regarding the exclusion of the COVID period for calculating limitation. The Tribunal condoned the delay of 89 days and remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for deciding on merits.
The Tribunal held that disallowance of expenditure cannot be made solely because vouchers are handmade, without specific defects being pointed out. The addition sustained by the CIT(A) was not supported by any valid reason and hence cannot be sustained.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application by the CIT(E) was not in order, as the assessee had commenced activities by purchasing land and constructing a community hall, and there was no lack of genuineness in the trust's objects or activities. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The tribunal found the CIT(E)'s order contradictory regarding the assessee's activities and quashed it. It remanded the matter, directing the assessee to re-furnish all requisite information to the CIT(E) within 90 days for fresh examination and a speaking order on the genuineness of its charitable activities and eligibility for Section 12AB registration. The application under Section 80G(5) is to be decided afresh after the decision on Section 12AB.
The ITAT found that the Ld.CIT(A) had indeed sent hearing notices to an email ID different from the one registered for the assessee, justifying the assessee's non-appearance. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted the assessee an opportunity to appear before the Ld.CIT(A) and directed the Ld.CIT(A) to issue fresh notices to the correct email ID for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal accepted the additional grounds raised by the assessee concerning the nature of the cash deposits. The case was remitted to the Ld.CIT(A) to consider the issue afresh, including the additional grounds and documents.
The Tribunal found that the wrong email ID was provided in Form 35, leading to non-receipt of notices. The Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present their case before the AO, subject to payment of costs.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d), as the Supreme Court's later decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. clarifies the eligibility for such deductions. The disallowance of audit fees was also contested.
The Tribunal held that Bigtree acts independently and not on behalf of the theatre owners for providing ticketing services. Therefore, Section 194H is not applicable. The lower authorities failed to consider a previous order of the Tribunal on similar facts.
The Tribunal granted the assessee an opportunity to appear before the Assessing Officer with proofs to establish that the cash deposits originated from his parents' bank account. The assessment order and CIT(A) order were set aside and remitted for denovo consideration.
The tribunal found the CIT(E)'s order contradictory regarding the assessee's activities and quashed it. It remanded the matter, directing the assessee to re-furnish all requisite information to the CIT(E) within 90 days for fresh examination and a speaking order on the genuineness of its charitable activities and eligibility for Section 12AB registration. The application under Section 80G(5) is to be decided afresh after the decision on Section 12AB.
The Tribunal held that the Ld.CIT(A)'s order was passed without considering the assessee's reply filed on 24/03/2025, making it not based on the submissions. Therefore, the order was set aside.
The Tribunal ruled that the CPC's adjustment, confirmed by the ld. CIT(A), was not sustainable. It clarified that Rule 17 of the I.T. Rules and Form 9A do not apply to claims for corpus donation under Section 11(1)(d), and the requirement for Form 9A for accumulation was also misunderstood. The case is remanded to the Assessing Officer (AO) for verification of the assessee's claims regarding the corpus donation and 15% accumulation.
The Tribunal noted that notices were sent to an outdated email ID of the assessee's former Chartered Accountant's employee, and the assessee did not have a proper opportunity to appear. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, directing the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after the assessee pays Rs. 10,000 as cost.
The Tribunal held that the final assessment order passed by the AO on 20/07/2022 is barred by limitation as per Section 144C(13) of the Act. The Tribunal reasoned that the DRP's directions, uploaded on the department's portal on 29/01/2022, are deemed to have been received by the AO on the same date, especially in the context of the faceless assessment scheme. The Tribunal noted that the DIN was generated on 29/01/2022, indicating the availability of the order. The revenue's reliance on a loose sheet without authentication was not accepted. Following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble High Courts in Vodafone Idea Ltd., Louis Dreyfus Company India (P.) Ltd., and Rapiscan Systems Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that the mandatory timelines under Section 144C(13) were not adhered to. Consequently, the final assessment order was set aside on this legal ground. The Tribunal did not adjudicate the other grounds raised by the assessee on merits.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application by the CIT(E) was not in order, as the assessee had commenced activities by purchasing land and constructing a community hall, and there was no lack of genuineness in the trust's objects or activities. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that reimbursement of salary costs for seconded employees, even without a profit element, can be considered taxable as Fee for Technical Services. The nature of the payment, not just the label 'reimbursement', is determinative.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, including loan agreements and bank confirmations, acknowledging sufficient cause for their delayed submission. It remitted the entire issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing the AO to consider the new evidence and grant the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that souharda co-operative societies are eligible for deduction under Section 80P, following a High Court ruling. It also upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition under Section 68, finding that the cash deposits from members were explained and identifiable.
The Tribunal held that Quest Global Engineering Pvt. Ltd. was not a functionally comparable company and directed its exclusion. The Tribunal also directed a fresh consideration of the inclusion of DCM Ltd. and Telecommunication Consultancy India Ltd., requiring the AO/TPO to provide an opportunity to the assessee.