Loading ITAT cases…
228 orders · Page 3 of 5
The Tribunal deleted the addition related to the opening cash balance, stating it cannot be added without rejecting the books of accounts. However, it confirmed the remaining addition as the assessee failed to substantiate the claim and acknowledge the demonetization deadline.
The Tribunal held that since the Assessing Officer had already accepted the assessee's claim that no such payment was made, the subsequent action under Section 201(1)/201(1A) and the CIT(A)'s order were unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that while the subsequent favorable decision in the co-owner's case might be relevant to the merits, it does not explain the substantial delay in filing the appeal. The explanation of illness, death, and lack of knowledge of legal heirs was not considered sufficient cause for the entire delay.
The Tribunal noted that a similar issue regarding the definition of charitable purpose and religious nature was decided in a previous case. Following that precedent, the Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(E) for re-examination.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer for a fresh opportunity to present its case. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal restricted the addition for cash deposits to Rs. 7.50 Lacs, considering the assessee's explanation as partly substantiated. The addition under Section 56(2)(vii) for the plots was deleted, finding the valuation report to be mere opinion evidence without proof of actual on-money payment.
The Tribunal found that the CIT's observations regarding the unutilized land and undeclared income were based on presumptions. It also noted that other reasons for rejection required detailed re-examination.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on merits. To ensure substantial justice, the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination of the source of funds.
The Tribunal held that the rectification order was passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice by not providing the assessee with an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the rectification order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's conduct was not satisfactory, the ends of justice would be met by granting one final opportunity. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, subject to a cost imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have thoroughly examined the assessee's explanations and supporting evidence regarding the loans and transactions with connected persons. The scope of inquiry for registration is limited to genuineness of activities and compliance with objects.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's conduct was not satisfactory, the ends of justice would be met by granting one final opportunity. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, subject to a cost imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's conduct was not satisfactory, the ends of justice would be met by granting one final opportunity. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, subject to a cost imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's conduct was not satisfactory, the ends of justice would be met by granting one final opportunity. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, subject to a cost imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's conduct was not satisfactory, the ends of justice would be met by granting one final opportunity. The appeals were restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits, subject to a cost imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the rectification order was passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice by not providing the assessee with an opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the rectification order was set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s action of restoring the matter back to the AO for a denovo assessment. Since the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the individual grounds of appeal, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the order.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of registration based solely on website description without proper factual examination was inappropriate. The assessee's claim of being open to the public at large needed to be verified through actual admission policies and student profiles.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not granted an effective opportunity of hearing and that principles of natural justice should be followed. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not granted an effective opportunity of hearing and that principles of natural justice should be followed. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to confront the assessee with the issue of it being a religious entity and did not conduct a factual examination of financial statements for 80G approval. The orders were set aside for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum appeal was remanded, the consequential penalty should also be restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication based on the outcome of the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal, considering principles of natural justice, allowed the assessee's prayer for remand. The issue of registration was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration, with directions for the assessee to prove its case.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) failed to confront the assessee with the issue of it being a religious entity and did not conduct a factual examination of financial statements for 80G approval. The orders were set aside for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment, with the assessee directed to plead and prove its case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's lack of familiarity with tax matters and engagement of a new counsel. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed a fresh assessment, allowing the assessee to present their case.
The Tribunal held that additions based solely on third-party ledger/excel sheets and statements, without independent corroboration or establishing a nexus with the assessee's transactions, are unsustainable. The Tribunal found no evidence of the assessee's ownership or possession of unexplained money.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of registration based solely on website description without proper factual examination was inappropriate. The assessee's claim of being open to the public at large needed to be verified through actual admission policies and student profiles.
The Tribunal held that an inadvertent reporting or typographical error in the Tax Audit Report should not lead to disallowance if payments were made in time. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for verification of deposit challans.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal merely for non-prosecution without adjudicating on merits. The impugned orders were set aside and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay, lacking material particulars and an affidavit. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Tribunal found the delay to be due to gross negligence and lack of diligence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay, and no affidavit was filed to support the condonation application. The explanation was vague and lacked material particulars, demonstrating a lack of diligence.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed.
The Tribunal found that the additional evidence submitted by the assessee during the first appeal required confrontation with the Assessing Officer and had a material bearing on the addition. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s action of remanding the matter was upheld.
The Tribunal restored the penalty appeal to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, following the restoration of the quantum appeal. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue of approval back to the CIT(Exemptions). This was done because the related issue of registration under Section 12AB(1)(b) had already been set aside by the Tribunal and its adjudication would impact the 80G approval.
The Tribunal found that the explanation regarding withdrawals and redeposits required proper examination. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication of the addition.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer to remand the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, citing principles of natural justice. The assessee was directed to present its case and provide necessary documentation.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as the reasons provided were bonafide. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer (AO) filed a report accepting the assessee's claim, which was based on the Tribunal's earlier directions.
The tribunal considered the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal. The revenue did not object to the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal merely for non-prosecution without adjudicating on merits. The impugned orders were set aside and the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its onus by providing evidence of sales and purchases, supported by VAT returns and audited books of accounts. The Tribunal found no defects in the books and noted that the AO failed to rebut the evidence provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of an inadvertent mistake was not credible, as the issue had been settled in prior proceedings and the admission came only after scrutiny. Therefore, the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income.
The Tribunal found that the explanation regarding withdrawals and redeposits required proper examination. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication of the addition.
The Tribunal followed a previous decision on a similar issue concerning the contours of religion and guidelines for approving such trusts. The appeal was restored to the CIT(E) for examination on similar lines.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue as the AO's inquiry remained incomplete. The AO recorded that purchases were unverifiable but ultimately accepted the assessee's explanation without further investigation or cogent reasons.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for de-novo adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to plead and prove its case, citing principles of natural justice. This was due to the assessee's contention of being unrepresented and its ability to demonstrate that TDS was not required on the impugned payments.
The Tribunal found that the assessee required one more opportunity to present its case. The matter was remanded back to the CIT (Exemptions) to provide sufficient opportunity for hearing and to file necessary documents.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it and set aside the order of the CIT(A). The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to properly consider the medical grounds cited for the delay. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for a fresh assessment, directing the assessee to ensure compliance.