Loading ITAT cases…
288 orders · Page 4 of 6
The Tribunal held that the assessee had shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the principle that procedural rules should not obstruct substantial justice. Therefore, the delay was condoned.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the fresh application without considering the merits, especially since the financial years covered were different and subsequent payments to Sparsh Trust were not questioned. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT held that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing technical issues beyond the assessee's control. The tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo consideration.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that appellate authorities have the power to entertain new claims, especially when the gain is notional and not realized. The addition was directed to be examined and allowed if found correct, following various Supreme Court and High Court precedents.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an adequate opportunity to respond to the system-generated delivery report used to determine the delay. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on the condonation of delay, ensuring principles of natural justice are followed.
The Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its claim by furnishing documentary evidence. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's submissions regarding the foreign currency lacked merit due to contradictory statements and a failure to provide satisfactory documentary evidence. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order confirming the addition.
The Tribunal held that retrenchment compensation received from BSNL VRS is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act, following numerous judicial precedents. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow the exemption.
The Tribunal held that SBNs received before the cessation date (31.12.2016) and deposited could not be treated as unexplained investment. However, for AY 2018-19, the deduction under Section 80P was disallowed due to the belated filing of the return as per Section 80AC.
The Tribunal held that SBNs received before the cessation date (31.12.2016) and deposited could not be treated as unexplained investment. However, for AY 2018-19, the deduction under Section 80P was disallowed due to the belated filing of the return as per Section 80AC.
The Tribunal held that retrenchment compensation received from BSNL VRS is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act, following numerous judicial precedents. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment was obtained from an authority not competent under Section 151 of the Act, rendering the notice under Section 148 and subsequent proceedings void ab initio.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's request for one final opportunity, decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is directed to consider the documentary evidence and decide the appeal afresh.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application based on a mere technical and procedural lapse was not justified. It emphasized that procedural mistakes should not defeat substantial rights, especially for charitable institutions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) based on Supreme Court and High Court decisions, as the income is attributable to credit facilities provided to members. The disallowance of provisions was also upheld as having no tax effect.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte due to non-appearance without adjudicating on merits. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for de novo adjudication on merits, directing that no order be passed without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that deposits in SB notes, even if received after the RBI prohibition, cannot automatically be treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 if the assessee provides details of the members from whom they were collected. The addition made under Section 68 was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed submitted the required documents, including fire safety certificates and building safety reports. Therefore, the CIT(E)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had attempted to provide evidence, but faced technical limitations and insufficient time. The CIT(A) also rejected additional evidence without proper consideration. Therefore, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee another opportunity to present their case with supporting documents.
The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved another opportunity to substantiate her claim of agricultural income. The matter was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication after examining the details furnished by the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed returns under the new PAN and the old PAN remained active. Considering the assessee's undertaking to cancel the old PAN, the Tribunal set aside the lower authorities' orders and remitted the issue to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the outstanding trade receivables from the associated enterprise were closely linked to the main transaction of "Provision of Software Development Services." Since the comparables were selected by the TPO, it was presumed that their segmental working capital details were available. Rule 10B(3)(ii) and 10B(1)(e) of the Income Tax Rules support adjustments for differences. The Tribunal directed the TPO/AO to compute and grant a working capital adjustment in respect of the "Provision of Software Development Services." Once a working capital adjustment is granted under TNMM benchmarking, the impact of delayed receivables is subsumed, and no separate adjustment for notional interest on receivables is warranted. Accordingly, Ground No. 7 was allowed for statistical purposes. Regarding Ground No. 8, which pertained to an incorrect total income in the computation sheet and demand notice, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a rectification application. The AO was directed to correctly compute the income as per law. Thus, Ground No. 8 was also allowed for statistical purposes. Ground No. 10, concerning interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C, was deemed consequential and required no separate adjudication. The appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's lack of cooperation and failure to provide evidence for the source of cash deposits. Consequently, the lower authorities' addition under Section 69A was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of delayed employee's contribution to PF and ESI could not have been made under section 143(1)(a) prior to AY 2021-22, as the issue was debatable at the time of intimation. The CPC should not have made such an adjustment on a debatable issue.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to sufficient cause, finding the assessee's explanation bona fide. It held that the denial of substantive FTC benefit should not be based solely on procedural lapses like delayed Form-67 filing.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 25 lakhs could not be sustained merely on suspicion or probability. The assessee had provided evidence of substantial cash withdrawals over a period, and the Revenue had not presented any positive evidence to disprove her explanation.
The Tribunal held that the approval for issuing the notice under section 148A(d) and section 148 was required from the Principal Chief Commissioner/Chief Commissioner, as more than three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, as per Section 151(ii). The approval by the Pr. CIT was therefore invalid, rendering the subsequent proceedings bad in law.
The Tribunal held that a mere delay in filing Form 67 should not preclude the assessee from claiming FTC, especially when the claim is substantive and supported by law. The matter was remitted to the AO for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the approval for the reassessment notice was obtained from an authority not specified under section 151(ii) of the Act, rendering the notice and subsequent reassessment order invalid. This non-compliance vitiated the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the increase in capital was due to the adjustment of previously existing assets and liabilities brought into the books via journal entry, not fresh cash introduction. The assessee had provided evidence of these assets being acquired in earlier years.
The Tribunal found that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessee was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT (Exemptions) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the rejection was based on a technical error and a bona fide mistake by the assessee. Following a coordinate bench decision, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently established the identity of the lender (Managing Director), the genuineness of the transaction (loan from MD to company), and the creditworthiness of the lender by referring to the lender's bank statement showing sufficient balance.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had reasonably explained the source and availability of the cash deposit with supporting documents like a cash book and cash-flow statement. The Revenue failed to bring cogent material to disprove the assessee's explanation.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's age, health, and the interest of fairness, decided to grant one more opportunity. The matter was set aside and returned to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after the assessee submits all relevant documents.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued beyond the permissible period of 3 years from the end of the relevant assessment year, as the alleged escaped income was less than INR 50 lakhs. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and the assessment order were quashed.
The Tribunal held that there is no bar to filing a fresh application after rejection and that the CIT(Exemptions) has the power to condone delays. The Tribunal directed the CIT(Exemptions) to condone the delay and decide the applications afresh.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's subsequent conduct in filing the return clearly reflecting the New Tax Regime should prevail over the earlier Form 10-IEA, especially when the Form was claimed to be filed inadvertently. The choice in the return of income is to be given effect to.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT (Exemptions) for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to submit all necessary documents and was granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 247 days, finding sufficient cause and prioritizing substantial justice over technicalities. The matter was then remitted to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The assessee is permitted to furnish further evidence, and the AO must provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the substantial delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A)/NFAC. The reasons provided were general, vague, and unsupported by evidence, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.
The Tribunal held that interest earned by a co-operative society on investments in banks is attributable to its business of providing credit facilities to its members. Therefore, such interest income is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that there is no bar to filing a fresh application after rejection and that the CIT(Exemptions) has the power to condone delays. The Tribunal directed the CIT(Exemptions) to condone the delay and decide the applications afresh.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 117 days in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee had valid reasons for not filing in time. The Tribunal was satisfied that the assessee, a Japanese citizen, left India after his assignment and that departmental communications were sent to an inactive email ID, preventing him from responding. There was no contra-evidence to disprove these contentions. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities. The issue was remitted to the file of the AO for fresh consideration, with a direction to grant the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to allow the assessee to furnish necessary documents in support of his claim. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the substantial delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A)/NFAC. The reasons provided were general, vague, and unsupported by evidence, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the substantial delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A)/NFAC. The reasons provided were general, vague, and unsupported by evidence, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.