Loading ITAT cases…
316 orders · Page 2 of 7
The Tribunal, considering principles of natural justice, granted the assessee another opportunity for a hearing before the lower authorities. This is subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 6,000/- to a specified fund.
The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, granted the assessee another opportunity to be heard before the lower authorities. This is subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 3,000/- to a specified fund.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited by the assessee. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing principles of natural justice and the assessee's status as a charitable trust. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the AO for fresh consideration, with a direction for the assessee to present its case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing principles of natural justice and the assessee's status as a charitable trust. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the AO for fresh consideration, with a direction for the assessee to present its case.
The tribunal, in the interest of substantial justice and to ensure a fair hearing, decided to grant one final opportunity to the assessee. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing and decide the grounds on merits.
The ITAT set aside the impugned orders and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to present their case, subject to payment of costs.
The Tribunal restored the issue of registration back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to plead and prove its case promptly.
The Tribunal held that the AO's presumption of sales deviating from past trends was fallacious, especially during an abnormal period like demonetization. Since the books of accounts were not rejected and documentary evidence supported the sales, the addition made on a ratio and proportion basis was unsustainable.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was granted as a final opportunity, subject to the assessee paying costs and cooperating fully.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred by not examining the financial statements and considering the proviso to Section 80G(5B), which allows for religious expenditure up to 5% of total income. The matter was set aside for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that a comprehensive examination was required and that principles of natural justice were violated. The assessee was not afforded a sufficient and effective opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, directing the CIT(E) to re-adjudicate the application dated 30-09-2025 on its merits. The earlier withdrawn application was to be treated as such.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s classification was not based on the assessee's actual activities or financial statements. It directed the CIT(E) to amend the registration to accord 'charitable trust' status and to reconsider the 80G approval application de novo.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s classification was not based on the assessee's actual activities, which were primarily charitable and educational. Therefore, the CIT(E) was directed to amend the annexure and grant the status of a 'charitable trust'.
The tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that a comprehensive examination was required. The order was set aside as it was passed without affording a sufficient and effective opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to plead and prove its case.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, directing the CIT(E) to re-adjudicate the application dated 30-09-2025 on its merits. The earlier withdrawn application was to be treated as such.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to full TDS credit as it represents the assessee's money deducted by payers/banks, irrespective of whether the gross receipts were offered to tax. The nature of the assessee's business as a commission agent was crucial.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to substantiate its case with cogent evidence, emphasizing the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the reinvestment in the grandson's name was a productive use of sale consideration and eligible for deduction under Section 54B. Therefore, no capital gains were to be assessed in the hands of the assessee.
The Tribunal admitted the appeals, condoning the delay, citing principles of natural justice and the assessee's lack of awareness. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits, subject to a cost payment.
The Tribunal, in the interest of substantial justice, granted a final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claims. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee's books of account were not rejected and the cash deposits were explained by regularly maintained business records, the addition was unsustainable. The Tribunal found that the revenue failed to discharge its burden of proving the cash represented unexplained money.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the bona fide reasons provided by the assessee. It set aside the ex parte orders of the CIT(A) and restored the appeals for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the bona fide reasons provided by the assessee. It set aside the ex parte orders of the CIT(A) and restored the appeals for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's explanation. The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal admitted the appeals, condoning the delay, citing principles of natural justice and the assessee's lack of awareness. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits, subject to a cost payment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to full TDS credit as it represents the assessee's money deducted by payers/banks, irrespective of whether the gross receipts were offered to tax. The nature of the assessee's business as a commission agent was crucial.
The Tribunal admitted the appeals, condoning the delay, citing principles of natural justice and the assessee's lack of awareness. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits, subject to a cost payment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the assessee's explanation. The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench decision, holding that 50% of the interest on enhanced compensation was rightly taxed. The Tribunal also directed the AO to grant credit for TDS on this interest income.
The tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that a comprehensive examination was required and that principles of natural justice were violated. The impugned orders were set aside and the matters were restored to the CIT (Exemptions) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000, and remanded the matter back to the AO for a de novo assessment on merits, directing the assessee to substantiate its case.
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the monetary limit specified by the CBDT Circular. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The tribunal, in the interest of substantial justice and to ensure a fair hearing, decided to grant a final opportunity to the assessee. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal, in the interest of substantial justice, granted a final opportunity to the assessee to present its case before the Assessing Officer. The impugned orders were set aside and the matters were restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s classification was not based on the assessee's actual activities or financial statements. It directed the CIT(E) to amend the registration to accord 'charitable trust' status and to reconsider the 80G approval application de novo.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of interest paid to partners was unjustified as the authorities below failed to appreciate the running nature of the accounts. It also held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was unsustainable as tax was deducted at source and the recipient had offered the income to tax.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated Rule 46A by admitting additional evidence without confronting it to the Assessing Officer and without recording proper reasons. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal, in the interest of substantial justice and to advance the cause of natural justice, granted one final opportunity to the assessee. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reinvestment in the grandson's name was a productive use of sale consideration and eligible for deduction under Section 54B. Therefore, no capital gains were to be assessed in the hands of the assessee.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal of the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal, in the interest of substantial justice, granted a final opportunity to the assessee to present its case before the Assessing Officer. The impugned orders were set aside and the matters were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, in the interest of substantial justice, granted a final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claims. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that a comprehensive examination was required and that principles of natural justice were violated. The impugned orders were set aside and the matters were restored to the CIT (Exemptions) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's inability to trace assessment records is an administrative lapse and cannot prevent the implementation of a binding appellate order. The Assessing Officer has a statutory obligation to reconstruct records and give effect to the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal, in the interest of substantial justice, granted a final opportunity to the assessee to present its case before the Assessing Officer. The impugned orders were set aside and the matters were restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee suffered double disallowance, which is impermissible. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, setting aside the order dismissing the appeal for delay.