Loading ITAT cases…
142 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to pass a speaking order on the assessee's objections to the reopening, violating principles of natural justice and Supreme Court guidelines. Consequently, the assessment order was deemed to be without jurisdiction and quashed.
The Tribunal held that the illness of the Managing Trustee constituted a reasonable cause under Section 273B for the delay in filing returns. Since there was no intentional delay or loss of revenue, the penalty was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that the illness of the Managing Trustee constituted a reasonable cause under Section 273B for the delay in filing returns. Since there was no intentional delay or loss of revenue, the penalty was not leviable.
The Tribunal held that the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2021, to Section 36(1)(va) by inserting Explanation 2 is prospective and not retrospective. Therefore, the amended provisions are not applicable for the assessment years under consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte without sufficient opportunity for the assessee to present its case. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the interest expenditure was correctly capitalized as part of the cost of acquisition and not claimed as revenue expenditure. The Assessing Officer's disallowance was found to be untenable.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot change the valuation method chosen by the assessee. However, due to an abnormal increase in share premium compared to the previous year, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer to re-examine the valuation using the discounted cash flow method.
The tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had settled dues under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and issued Form No.5. Therefore, the appeals filed by the assessee were liable to be dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The assessee has the liberty to seek restoration if the declaration under the scheme is not accepted.
The CIT(A) directed the AO to delete the addition and provide TDS credit in the next assessment year, as the income was offered in the subsequent year. The Tribunal found this logical to avoid double taxation and upheld the CIT(A)'s direction.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO was directed to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, considering the directions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to allow the assessee an opportunity to demonstrate that the payee had offered the interest income in their returns and paid taxes. If proven, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) would not be applicable.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income and must be computed considering only investments yielding exempt income. It directed the AO to verify the assessee's alternative disallowance of Rs. 3.34 Lacs and restrict the disallowance to that extent, or to nil if investments were sourced from own funds.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and natural justice, decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had settled dues under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and issued Form No.5. Therefore, the appeals filed by the assessee were liable to be dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had paid dues under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and the designated authority had issued Form No. 5. Therefore, the appeal was liable to be dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme and was not objected to by the revenue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) erred in denying TDS credit. It was an admitted fact that reimbursements received by the assessee are not taxable in its hands, even if TDS was deducted. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to credit for the entire TDS.
The Tribunal held that the AO had conducted limited scrutiny and the assessee had provided sufficient details regarding own funds and investments. The Tribunal also found that club expenses were incurred for business purposes. Therefore, the revision order passed by the PCIT was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the main objects of the assessee are charitable in nature (preservation of environment). Ancillary objects, even if commercial, are permissible if they serve the main charitable purpose. Potential violations of Sections 11(1)(a) and 13(1)(c) are matters for the Assessing Officer to consider during exemption assessment, not grounds to deny registration.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, following a precedent set by the Madras High Court. The dismissal is subject to the assessee's liberty to seek recall if they fail to utilize the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had applied for withdrawal of the appeal under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the Department had issued Form 3. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue was precluded from filing the appeal as the tax effect was less than the prescribed monetary limit. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was liable to be dismissed.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the assessee had opted for the Vivad se Vishwas scheme and the Department had issued Form 3. Liberty was granted to restore the appeal if the scheme application was rejected.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. However, upon the assessee opting for the Vivad-se-Vishwas Scheme, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay and decide on merits. The CIT(A) also failed to consider the assessee's submissions in the second appeal.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, following a precedent set by the Madras High Court. The dismissal is subject to the assessee's liberty to seek recall if they fail to utilize the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme.
The Tribunal found that the appeals were indeed a duplication of previously decided matters. Consequently, the ex-parte order was recalled, and the duplicate appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground regarding jurisdiction under section 147 and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the legal issue and then the claim of deduction afresh.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without providing an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after considering the delay.
The Tribunal condoned the delay due to sufficient cause and set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A). The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the authorities below should have examined the profit and loss account submitted by the assessee to verify the provision made. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the Assessing Officer for re-examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, finding the assessee's reasons reasonable. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication of the e-appeal.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had filed an application for withdrawal of the appeal under the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme and the department had issued Form 3. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal admitted the additional ground regarding jurisdiction under section 147 and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the legal issue and then the claim of deduction afresh.
The Tribunal found that the appeals were indeed a duplication of previously decided matters. Consequently, the ex-parte order was recalled, and the duplicate appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the appeals were indeed a duplication of previously decided matters. Consequently, the ex-parte order was recalled, and the duplicate appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided an opportunity to the assessee to explain the delay and decide on merits. The CIT(A) also failed to consider the assessee's submissions in the second appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's intention to avail the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Following a High Court precedent, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, considering the directions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court.
The Tribunal held that the objections raised by the assessee regarding the DVO's valuation, particularly concerning the comparable properties and the size difference, were technical in nature and had not been properly considered or adjudicated by the lower authorities. Although the assessee's objections were filed after the DVO's report date, the Tribunal noted that similar objections were raised before the CIT(A) but were not dealt with. The CIT(A)'s order was also described as non-speaking. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the AO. The AO was directed to refer the property back to the DVO to consider the assessee's objections and determine the fair market value in accordance with the law. Regarding the other issues of improvement cost, brokerage, and construction expenses, the Tribunal also set aside the lower authorities' orders and remanded these issues to the AO for reconsideration, as they would impact the capital gains calculation. The Tribunal explicitly left undecided the correctness of the DVO's valuation method and the assessee's objections on their merits.