Loading ITAT cases…
316 orders · Page 5 of 7
The Tribunal held that exemption under Section 10(10AA)(i) is available only for the leave encashment attributable to the period served with the State Government undertaking. Leave encashment for the subsequent period with the privatized entity is not eligible for the same exemption.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, with no opposition from the Revenue.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, restoring the appeals for de novo adjudication. The assessee is directed to explain the delay to the CIT(A), who will then address the grievances on merits if the appeal is admitted.
The Tribunal admitted the appeal despite the delay, considering principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, with a direction for the assessee to present its case.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer, setting aside the impugned order and restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de-novo assessment. The assessee was directed to plead and prove its case.
The Tribunal, adhering to principles of natural justice, set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment. The assessee was directed to present and prove its case.
The Tribunal, observing principles of natural justice, set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment. The assessee was directed to plead and prove its case.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer for a fresh adjudication, citing principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication, with a direction to the assessee to present its case.
The Tribunal restored the matter back to the AO for de-novo assessment, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present and prove its case, adhering to the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the AO for a de-novo assessment. The assessee is directed to plead and prove its case.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted adequate inquiries and adopted a possible view, which was not perverse. Therefore, the revisionary order under Section 263 was not justified.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, restoring the appeals for de novo adjudication. The assessee is directed to explain the delay to the CIT(A), who will then address the grievances on merits if the appeal is admitted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/-. The appeal was to be adjudicated de novo on merits by the CIT(A) after the cost is deposited.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter is restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, with the direction for the assessee to prove its case.
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the AO for de-novo assessment. The assessee was directed to plead and prove its case.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal was remanded, the penalty appeal, being an after-effect, should also be remanded back to the AO. The AO is to pass an appropriate order based on the outcome of the assessment proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proof to explain the source of expenditure. The significant mismatch between salary income and credit card payments, coupled with the lack of evidence, justified the addition.
The Tribunal held that the exemption under Section 10(23AAB) is not available as the statutory conditions were not fulfilled. Fiscal statutes must be interpreted strictly, and equitable considerations cannot override the express mandate of the law.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and set aside the dismissal order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after affording the assessee an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and set aside the dismissal order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the appeals afresh on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal, observing principles of natural justice, decided to grant the assessee another opportunity to present their case. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the AO for a de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and set aside the dismissal order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the appeals afresh on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) and set aside the dismissal order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the appeals afresh on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the impugned order and restored the matter back to the AO for a de-novo assessment. The assessee was directed to present and prove its case.
The Tribunal held that the addition could not be sustained solely on the basis of an uncorroborated third-party Excel sheet without any independent evidence. It also noted that a Coordinate Bench had deleted similar additions in the hands of the recipient (Omaxe Ltd.).
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide specific particulars and documentary evidence to substantiate the reasons for the extraordinary delay. Vague and general assertions were deemed insufficient to establish 'sufficient cause'.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to restore the matter to the AO for de novo assessment, citing principles of natural justice. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 20,000/- to a charitable fund.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer for natural justice and admitted the appeal, subject to a cost of Rs. 10,000. The CIT(A) was directed to conduct a de novo adjudication of the appeal.
The Tribunal admitted the appeal, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000, and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, emphasizing principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request for another hearing before the lower authorities, subject to a cost of Rs. 3,000/-. The CIT(A) was directed to adjudicate the appeal de novo on merits without considering the delay.
The Tribunal rejected the argument that the reassessment notice was issued in the name of a deceased assessee, as no return was filed and legal heirs did not inform the AO. The Tribunal restored the issue of whether the interest income accrued to the assessee to the AO for fresh consideration with evidence.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders, restoring the appeals to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to plead and prove its case, and the issue of delay was not to be raised.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, restoring the applications back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to plead and prove its case. The decision was based on principles of natural justice and the assessee being a charitable trust.
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, admitted the appeal and restored it to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to present and prove its case.
The Tribunal, adhering to principles of natural justice, granted the assessee another opportunity of hearing before the CIT(A). The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored for de-novo adjudication.
The tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for passing a fresh order after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Costs of Rs. 3,000/- were imposed on the assessee for non-cooperative conduct.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, emphasizing principles of natural justice. The assessee is directed to present and prove its case.
The Tribunal admitted the appeal, condoned the delay, and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The legal heirs were directed to present and prove the case of the deceased assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide specific particulars and documentary evidence to substantiate the reasons for the extraordinary delay. Vague and general assertions were deemed insufficient to establish 'sufficient cause'.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the lower authorities for a de novo assessment, citing principles of natural justice. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/- within 30 days.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted it, subject to a cost of Rs. 3,000/-. The matter was remanded to the AO for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's income from referral commissions in bitcoins, which were encashed, could be determined on a presumptive basis under Section 44ADA at 50% of gross receipts. This is because the assessee did not maintain relevant records or regular books of accounts.
The Tribunal, upholding the principle of natural justice, set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the AO for a de-novo assessment, directing the assessee to present its case.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not make conclusive findings on the trust's objects or activities, and the rejection was primarily due to non-compliance. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, including medical care and professional training, were charitable in nature and provided to all irrespective of caste, creed, or religion. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to both registration as a religious cum charitable entity and approval under Section 80G.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It held that the compensation received due to the closure of the undertaking qualifies as retrenchment compensation under Section 10(10B), not voluntary retirement under Section 10(10C).
The Tribunal restored the matter to the lower authorities for a fresh assessment, emphasizing principles of natural justice. This is subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the first appeal, citing principles of natural justice and the assessee's lack of awareness. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, subject to a cost payment.
The Tribunal restored the issue back to the CIT(Exemptions) for de novo consideration under the correct clause. This was done to uphold principles of natural justice and allow the assessee to prove its case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.