Loading ITAT cases…
108 orders · Page 2 of 3
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 found that the CIT(E) did not provide reasons for treating the trust as a religious entity and did not consider the assessee's submissions properly. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to registration as a religious-cum-charitable trust, as its activities and historical classification supported this status. The impugned order was modified to reflect this.
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 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.
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.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to registration as a religious cum charitable trust, as it had consistently claimed this status and its activities supported it. The impugned order was modified to reflect this.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A), stating that procedural laws should not destroy rights and that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the appeals were restored for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A), stating that procedural laws should not destroy rights and that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the appeals were restored for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had selectively interpreted the trust's objects without examining its actual activities, which included running a school. The impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was based on irrelevant facts and borrowed satisfaction without due application of mind. The additions on merits were also unsustainable as the assessee had discharged its onus and the AO failed to provide contrary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was based on irrelevant facts and borrowed satisfaction without due application of mind. The additions were also unsubstantiated as the assessee had discharged its onus with documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was based on irrelevant facts and borrowed satisfaction without due application of mind. The additions on merits were also unsustainable as the assessee had discharged its onus and the AO failed to provide contrary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the opening debit balance and excess credit entries should be excluded from the addition. It further held that the peak cash deficit, when considered with the opening cash balance, meant no addition was sustainable for unexplained investment.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the Assessing Officer to frame a de novo assessment. This is to allow the assessee to present new documentary evidence supporting the cash deposits and agricultural income.
The tribunal deleted the disallowance for professional charges, finding that individual payments were below the TDS threshold. It also deleted the addition for branch stock, holding that the branch was a debtor for sales and the stock difference was not profit or loss.
The Tribunal held that the subsequent grant of registration by the CIT(E) itself validates the assessee's eligibility and renders the earlier rejection order unsustainable. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to registration under Section 12AB.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to present its case and prove its claims, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000.
The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the cost of acquisition for LTCG calculation. The assessee's claim for exemption under Section 54B was also to be considered in light of the re-determined cost.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has the power under the proviso to section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act to set aside an ex-parte assessment order and remand the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the rejection was based on a technical, inadvertent error. It set aside the orders and directed the CIT(E) to grant an opportunity of hearing and allow correction of the applications before disposing them on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had selectively interpreted the trust's objects without examining its actual activities, which included running a school. The impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the registration application for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to plead and prove its case.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue of registration back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to plead and prove its case.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) validly exercised its remand power under Section 251(1)(a) after considering the assessee's submissions, adhering to principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not considered all the documentary evidence submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal upheld the cancellation of registration, agreeing that running retail stores for general public sale, even at subsidized rates, does not constitute a charitable activity under Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. The assessee's activities were found to be commercial and not aligned with its stated charitable objects.
The Tribunal held that the rejection was based on a technical, inadvertent error. It set aside the orders and directed the CIT(E) to grant an opportunity of hearing and allow correction of the applications before disposing them on merits.
The Tribunal held that interest received on enhanced compensation is taxable under the head 'Income from Other Sources' after amendments by the Finance Act, 2009. The decision followed a coordinate bench ruling on similar facts.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was based on irrelevant facts and borrowed satisfaction without due application of mind. The additions on merits were also unsustainable as the assessee had discharged its onus and the AO failed to provide contrary evidence.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not properly examine the dominant objects and actual activities of the trust, especially considering its long history of being recognized as a charitable institution. The conflicting orders on the same date indicated a lack of proper application of mind.
The Tribunal held that the opening debit balance and excess credit entries should be excluded from the addition. It further held that the peak cash deficit, when considered with the opening cash balance, meant no addition was sustainable for unexplained investment.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was based on irrelevant facts and borrowed satisfaction without due application of mind. The additions on merits were also unsustainable as the assessee had discharged its onus and the AO failed to provide contrary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had the power under the proviso to Section 251(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act to set aside an ex-parte assessment order and remand the case back to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence, including ledger extracts and financial statements of lenders and the 'source of source', deeming them material. The issue was restored to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This is to be done in light of the outcome of the assessee's first appeal for AY 2018-19 concerning one of the entities.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to present its case and prove its claims, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A), stating that procedural laws should not destroy rights and that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. The impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the appeals were restored for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments, particularly the lack of an effective opportunity to rebut the CIT's findings. The impugned order was set aside, and the issue was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments, particularly regarding the lack of opportunity to rebut the findings. The impugned order was set aside, and the issue of approval was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to plead and prove its case, with all issues kept open.
The Tribunal held that the investment in property was sufficiently sourced from the assessee's mother's bank account, and the assessee had sufficient cash balance to cover the deposits and payments. Therefore, the additions could not be sustained.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not properly examine the dominant objects and actual activities of the trust, especially considering its long history of being recognized as a charitable institution. The conflicting orders on the same date indicated a lack of proper application of mind.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid as the escaped income did not exceed the statutory threshold of Rs. 50 lakhs required for reopening beyond three years. Therefore, the notice under Section 148 and the subsequent reassessment were quashed.
The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) relied on estimations without complete factual verification. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after thorough verification of purchases, GST records, and banking transactions, and providing the assessee with an opportunity to substantiate claims.
The Tribunal found that both the AO and CIT(A) relied on estimations without complete factual verification. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication after thorough verification of purchases, GST records, and banking transactions, and providing the assessee with an opportunity to substantiate claims.
The Tribunal dismissed the legal grounds as 'not pressed'. For the merits of the case, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present evidence.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and, considering the assessee's non-compliance, granted one final opportunity to substantiate its case before the CIT(A) upon payment of costs.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had not clearly identified specific violations under Section 12AB(4) and had not comprehensively examined the assessee's contentions. Therefore, the matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.