Loading ITAT cases…
108 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not sufficiently examine the documents provided by the assessee regarding property acquisition and the applicability of TDS provisions. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's prolonged illness. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits after condoning the delay.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not sufficiently examine the documents provided by the assessee regarding property acquisition and the applicability of TDS provisions. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance under Section 40A(2)(b) by following previous ITAT rulings. It also confirmed restricting the Section 14A disallowance to the extent of exempt income.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and allowed the assessee an opportunity to present her case before the Assessing Officer. This was subject to the assessee depositing Rs. 5000/- in the Prime Minister's National Relief Fund.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application without considering the assessee's existing registration and renewal. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration after providing the assessee an opportunity to furnish the required details.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application without considering the assessee's existing registration and renewal. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration after providing the assessee an opportunity to furnish the required details.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT and also directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on merits, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order of dismissal on limitation. The assessee was directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as costs.
The Tribunal held that as per Section 80AC(ii), no deduction under Chapter VIA is allowed if the return of income is not filed by the due date. Therefore, the assessee is not eligible for the deduction claimed under Section 80P.
The Tribunal held that only one opportunity was granted, which is insufficient to satisfy the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that an addition cannot be sustained solely on the basis of uncorroborated third-party material. The Revenue failed to discharge its burden of proving the cash payment with independent evidence.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, respectfully following a coordinate bench's decision in Shri Ajay Jain's case. This decision held that interest on enhanced compensation is taxable and not exempt, despite the assessees being ex-parte before lower authorities.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's non-compliance but granted a final opportunity to substantiate its case with evidence, setting aside the lower authorities' orders. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's non-compliance, granted one final opportunity to substantiate its case due to the totality of circumstances and in the interest of justice. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, respectfully following a coordinate bench's decision in Shri Ajay Jain's case. This decision held that interest on enhanced compensation is taxable and not exempt, despite the assessees being ex-parte before lower authorities.
The Tribunal found that the AO's addition was based on estimates without concrete evidence, and the assessee's claimed expenditure also lacked complete documentary support. Therefore, a reasonable disallowance was made, reducing the addition.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction by enhancing income on an issue not forming the basis of reassessment. It also ruled that the assessee was entitled to indexed cost of improvement and deductions under sections 54/54F for the capital gains.
The Tribunal found that the purchases were accounted for and reflected in the books of accounts. However, to minimize the rigor of reassessment, the assessee offered 10% over the profit on these purchases.
The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by remanding the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee an opportunity to submit their explanations and documents.
The Tribunal held that the interests of justice would be served by remanding the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The assessee would be given an opportunity to submit their explanations and documents.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were valid as the notice was issued within the prescribed time limit and the approval for reopening was obtained from the competent authority. The donation was found to be part of a bogus accommodation entry arrangement, making the deduction claim invalid.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) erred in ignoring the assessee's submission made on 27.12.2025, even though it was filed after the allowed timeline but was available to the CIT(A) when passing the order. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the order of the CIT(E). The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present its case and documents.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was valid. However, it found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on delay without considering merits. The Tribunal set aside the matter to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the additional evidence was material and ought to have been admitted. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the assessments were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeal, citing the assessee's poor and illiterate background and reliance on counsel. The AO was directed to frame a de novo assessment, and the assessee was directed to deposit Rs. 5,000/- for tree plantation.
The Tribunal admitted the appeal, restoring the issue of cash deposits back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to plead and prove its case, while the reopening grounds were upheld.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not adequately examined the assessee's status as a local authority and the corresponding surcharge provisions. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities' orders lacked proper factual verification and violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities' orders lacked proper factual verification and violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities' orders lacked proper factual verification and violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeals were set aside and restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the additional evidence was material and ought to have been admitted. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the assessments were restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal admitted the appeal, set aside the impugned orders, and restored the matter to the AO for a de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to deposit Rs. 10,000/- for tree plantation as a condition.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in refusing to condone the delay, considering the assessee's incarceration and the genuine difficulties faced. The delay was condoned in the interest of substantial justice.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to establish a clear nexus between the interest expenditure and the alleged High Court directions, and also lacked sufficient details regarding the registration deposits. Therefore, both issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal admitted the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to plead and prove its case and deposit Rs. 10,000/- for tree plantation.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to establish a clear nexus between the interest expenditure and the alleged High Court directions, and also lacked sufficient details regarding the registration deposits. Therefore, both issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessment was based on erroneous facts as the cash deposit was significantly less than Rs. 90 Lacs. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the assessment was restored to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee is not required to maintain regular books of accounts under Section 44AD, the cash deposits significantly exceeded cash sales. To end litigation, a lump sum addition of Rs. 2 Lacs was deemed to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the renewal application was not justified as the assessee had recently been granted registration and approval, and its charitable claims were accepted in scrutiny assessments. The rejection order was considered contrary to the principle of consistency.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. The Tribunal also set aside the assessment order and restored the entire matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, directing the AO to provide a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the Section 12AB registration, which was the sole basis for rejecting the Section 80G approval, no longer subsisted. However, the other statutory conditions for Section 80G approval were not examined.
The ITAT set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to plead and prove its case.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need for a proper opportunity of hearing and examination of evidence. The assessee was directed to cooperate and provide all necessary documents.