Loading ITAT cases…
91 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be bad in law and a violation of natural justice. The order was set aside, and the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) was justified in seeking further information to verify the genuineness of the trust's activities and compliance with its objects. The assessee failed to provide the necessary details.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions, noting that the opening cash balance of Rs. 11,20,160/- explained the deposits. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and pass a speaking and well-reasoned order.
The Tribunal held that the application for final registration cannot be rejected solely on the ground of delay if the assessee has already obtained provisional registration. The matter was remitted to the CIT(E) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide any finding on merits and failed to examine the assessee's core contention regarding the source of funds from her husband. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an order in violation of the principles of natural justice by not considering the assessee's written submissions. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the case was remanded for fresh determination.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an order in violation of the principles of natural justice by not considering the assessee's written submissions. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the case was remanded for fresh determination.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not pursue the first appeal diligently before the CIT(A) and offered no explanation for the non-prosecution. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a de novo decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the matter to the CIT(E). The assessee will be given an opportunity to submit the necessary information and documentation for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that even if the assessee had no case on merits, the CIT(A) was obligated to provide an opportunity of hearing before rectifying the order. The impugned order was set aside for violating the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the reasons provided by the assessee, such as ill health and CA negligence, were not corroborated and did not constitute reasonable cause. A belief based on a misconception of facts and law also does not qualify as reasonable cause for delayed filing.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s findings were based on newspaper reports and required further verification. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after proper verification and affording an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that Section 80A(5) is not applicable to deductions under Section 80P. It further held that the assessee should not suffer due to the mistake of their counsel, and legitimate deductions should be allowed even if claimed under the wrong section.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s findings were based on newspaper reports and required further verification. The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after proper verification and affording an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without considering the assessee's inability to access notices on the IT portal. Citing a jurisdictional High Court decision, the Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the return and audit report, acknowledging it was beyond the assessee's control. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was in violation of the principles of natural justice because the assessee did not receive the notices. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the Assessee cooperative society is eligible for the claim of deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act in respect of interest receipts of Rs. 28,92,482/- on deposits placed with The Ludhiana Central Co-operative Bank Limited. The Tribunal reasoned that Section 80P(4) is a proviso to the main provision and excludes only cooperative banks that possess a license from the RBI to conduct banking business. The Supreme Court in 'Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd.' clarified that the object of Section 80P(4) is to exclude cooperative banks functioning at par with commercial banks, which lend money to the public. Since the Assessee is a cooperative society and not a cooperative bank, Section 80P(4) is not applicable to its claim. The Tribunal found the Karnataka High Court's decision in 'Totagars Co-operative Sale Society' distinguishable and, in any case, subordinate to the Supreme Court's decision in 'Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd.'. The Tribunal also noted that the jurisdictional High Court's decision in 'Doaba Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd.' was not directly on the point of interest earned from a cooperative bank by a cooperative society. Following the Supreme Court's decision and the coordinate bench's ruling in 'Mullanpur Garibdas Co-operative Multipurpose Society', the Tribunal allowed the deduction.
The Tribunal held that no notice or order can be issued in the name of a dead person. Therefore, the order passed in the name of the deceased Shri Virbhadra Singh was invalid and quashed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the merits of the case. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus of explaining the nature and source of Rs. 9 lacs received from his brother-in-law. Regarding the remaining Rs. 3,19,755/-, the Tribunal found merit in the explanation of household savings and cash withdrawals, deeming it reasonable to allow relief.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee did not make the payment under the Vivad Se Vishwas scheme, the declaration was void. Therefore, the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cause for not submitting documents earlier, as they were with the auditor who refused to part with them. Therefore, the assessee deserves an opportunity to submit the relevant information.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the claim for deduction under Section 54B, despite the AO's remand report indicating eligibility for a portion of the deduction. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from submitting the information due to non-receipt of notices. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that Section 14A is not applicable when dividend income is offered to tax and not claimed as exempt. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A) was directed to be deleted.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal as the purpose of the appeal was rendered infructuous by the subsequent approval. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the assessee deserved another opportunity to present their case. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) to be decided afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was valid, as the AO had accepted the assessee's contentions without making necessary inquiries or verifications. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the PCIT's order.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not afforded an opportunity to present their case before the Assessing Officer and that the CIT(A) proceedings also lacked proper procedural fairness. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's order under Section 263 was passed beyond the period of limitation prescribed by the Act. Therefore, the revisionary jurisdiction was wrongly assumed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had accepted the assessee's books of account and noted that the alleged purchases were made at par or lower rates than other purchases. Therefore, no addition was justified.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had accepted the assessee's books of account and noted that the alleged purchases were made at par or lower rates than other purchases. Therefore, no addition was justified.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s finding that the assessee had prior knowledge of the disallowance of exemption for AY 2016-17 when filing the return for AY 2018-19 was incorrect. It also noted that no facts were suppressed and that a claim for exemption, even if disallowed, does not automatically attract penalty under Section 270A.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) allowed the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, as there was no objection from the Revenue.
The tribunal held that merely uploading the date of hearing on the Income Tax Portal does not constitute effective service of notice. The ex-parte order passed by the CIT(Appeals) is not sustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law and lacked jurisdiction. The Tribunal emphasized that reassessment cannot be based on a mere change of opinion without new material.
The Tribunal held that if the issue on which the assessment was reopened is accepted by the AO without making any addition, then additions on other issues not part of the original notice under Section 148 cannot be made. Therefore, the PCIT's order directing inquiry and addition of interest income was not sustainable.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's circumstances (illness and husband's death) which prevented diligent pursuit of proceedings. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for a final opportunity to present contentions.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the assessee had repaid partner capital and that the MOU was merely a draft of discussions during ongoing disputes, not a finalized transaction. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Revenue did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the ex-parte order was passed in violation of natural justice as notices were sent to an old, unused email ID. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present its case on merits.
The CIT(A) deleted the addition, finding that the assessee had repaid partner capital and that the MOU was merely a draft of discussions during ongoing disputes, not a finalized transaction. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion.
The tribunal considered the assessee's withdrawal application and the revenue's no objection. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn based on the changed circumstances and the assessee's request.
The Tribunal held that the application was filed within the extended time limit as per CBDT circulars and that the condition of filing within six months of commencement of activities does not apply after provisional registration. The matter was remitted to the CIT(Exemptions) for adjudication on merits.
The assessee filed a withdrawal application for their appeal. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal. The Tribunal considered the withdrawal application and the subsequent developments.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not afforded a proper opportunity to present her case. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to provide one last opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the ex-parte order was passed in violation of natural justice as no notice was served on the assessee's email. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was not speaking and lacked reasoning on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.