Loading ITAT cases…
316 orders · Page 3 of 7
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 held that since the quantum additions, which formed the basis for the penalties, were deleted in the first appeal, the penalties could not be sustained. Therefore, the Tribunal concurred with the deletion of penalties.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions, which formed the basis for the penalties, were deleted in the first appeal, the penalties could not be sustained. Therefore, the Tribunal concurred with the deletion of penalties.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions, which formed the basis for the penalties, were deleted in the first appeal, the penalties could not be sustained. Therefore, the Tribunal concurred with the deletion of penalties.
The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision, holding that 50% of the interest on enhanced compensation is taxable. The Tribunal also found no infirmity in the reopening of the assessment.
The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, granted the assessee another opportunity to present its case. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer for a fresh assessment, citing principles of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, considering it to be small, and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to present and prove its case.
The Tribunal found that Form No.35 was likely filed and thus the appeal should not have been marked as defective. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred by classifying the assessee as a religious entity without confronting the assessee and examining its financial statements. Similarly, denial of 80G approval was flawed due to lack of factual examination and consideration of Section 80G(5B).
The Tribunal upheld the reopening of assessment but found that the entire cash deposits could not be treated as unexplained. A part of the addition was sustained as a reasonable estimate.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 115BBE, enhancing the tax rate, is prospective and applicable from April 1, 2017. Since the assessment year in question is 2019-20, the amended provisions were already in force.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to pass a reasoned order and cannot dismiss an appeal solely for non-prosecution without deciding on merits. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee's business and books of account were not disputed, there was a significant increase in cash sales preceding demonetisation without complete substantiation. Therefore, the entire addition was not justified, nor was complete deletion appropriate.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred by not confronting the assessee with the issues of being a religious entity or having excessive religious expenditure. The impugned orders were set aside for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that institutions governed by Section 139(4C) did not have a specific statutory due date for filing the return of income during the assessment year in question. A minor procedural delay in filing the audit report, especially during the Covid period and before the return processing, should not defeat a substantive statutory benefit.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to confront the assessee with the issue of its classification as a religious entity, violating natural justice. Similarly, the denial of 80G approval lacked factual examination of financial statements and consideration of Section 80G(5B).
The Tribunal held that concealment of income must be in the filed return, which was not the case here. It was also found that the assessee's turnover was below the threshold for mandatory audit, and statutory disallowances do not warrant penalty.
The Tribunal held that concealment of income must be in the filed return, which was not the case here. It was also found that the assessee's turnover was below the threshold for mandatory audit, and statutory disallowances do not warrant penalty.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred by not confronting the assessee with the issues of being a religious entity or having excessive religious expenditure. The impugned orders were set aside for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that concealment of income must be in the filed return, which was not the case here. It was also found that the assessee's turnover was below the threshold for mandatory audit, and statutory disallowances do not warrant penalty.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred by classifying the assessee as a religious entity without confronting the assessee and examining its financial statements. Similarly, denial of 80G approval was flawed due to lack of factual examination and consideration of Section 80G(5B).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to confront the assessee with the issue of its classification as a religious entity, violating natural justice. Similarly, the denial of 80G approval lacked factual examination of financial statements and consideration of Section 80G(5B).
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal back to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) is directed to consider the appeal on its merits without raising the issue of delay.
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, granted the assessee another opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal admitted the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and restored the issue of registration back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to plead and prove its case.
The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice require an effective opportunity of hearing before passing an adverse order. The application was rejected primarily on technical grounds of non-compliance without adjudicating on the merits.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not afforded an effective and meaningful opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside to allow the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the rejection was a violation of natural justice as the assessee was not given an effective opportunity to present its case. Proceedings under Section 12AB are quasi-judicial and should be decided on merits, not just procedural defaults.
The Tribunal, upholding the principles of natural justice, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity of hearing. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the opportunity granted by the CIT(E) was not effective given the voluminous information required. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside to ensure principles of natural justice are followed.
The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable as it was based solely on an uncorroborated third-party statement without any documentary evidence or opportunity for cross-examination. A registered sale deed carries a presumption of correctness which was not rebutted by the Revenue.
The Tribunal found that the addition was based on mere presumption from an Excel sheet entry without concrete evidence of cash exchange. Citing previous judgments with similar facts, the Tribunal held that the revenue failed to discharge its onus to prove the cash transaction.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of sourcing deposits from earlier withdrawals was not entirely accepted. However, considering the possibility of accumulated savings, 60% of the deposit amount was accepted as explained, while the remaining 40% was confirmed as an addition.
The Tribunal found that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was required to be condoned. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits.
The Tribunal, considering principles of natural justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee is directed to present its case effectively.
The Tribunal found that the rejection was primarily due to non-compliance without a conclusive finding on the trust's activities. To ensure substantial justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with an effective opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and decided to give the assessee another opportunity to present her case on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s direction for a fresh assessment was appropriate given the factual matrix. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed.
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, granted the assessee another opportunity for a hearing. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to provide sufficient verifiable evidence initially, the matter requires a more comprehensive examination. The CIT(E)'s order was set aside, and the case was restored for fresh adjudication.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) after considering the assessee's reasons. The matter was then remitted back to the Assessing Officer for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh consideration on merits. The assessee was directed to present its case.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee by remanding the matter back to the CIT(A). This opportunity is conditional upon the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
The tribunal condoned the 2-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back for a decision on merits. The CIT(A) is to consider the issue of AO's notice being beyond the limitation period.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the penalty issue to the AO for fresh consideration. This is to be done in light of the decision made in the quantum assessment.
The Tribunal admitted the appeals, restoring them to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to plead and prove its case, with all issues kept open.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and restored the matter to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to plead and prove its case, as no opportunity of hearing was granted earlier, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment, emphasizing the principles of natural justice. The assessee was directed to present and prove its case.
The Tribunal held that the explanation provided by the assessee for the delay did not constitute a 'sufficient cause' under Section 249(3) of the Act. The Tribunal found the reasons vague, unsupported by evidence, and indicative of inaction and lack of diligence.