Loading ITAT cases…
181 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons reasonable. It then set aside the CIT(A)'s order, noting it was ex-parte and lacked proper adjudication, and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their claims. The assessee is directed to furnish complete details.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee attempted to explain a portion of the cash deposits by claiming withdrawals from a bank, which the Assessing Officer should have verified. The matter was not properly examined, leading to the decision to remand.
The Tribunal found that the ex-parte orders by both the AO and CIT(A) were passed without proper opportunity for the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a cooperative society, is eligible for deduction on dividend income received from a cooperative bank, following Supreme Court and High Court precedents. Therefore, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was incorrect.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not provide a proper opportunity of being heard and that the Erode District Central Co-operative Bank is registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. Citing Supreme Court and Tribunal precedents, the Tribunal held that such income is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).
The Tribunal allowed the deduction for interest earned from the co-operative bank, following Supreme Court precedents. It confirmed the disallowance for interest earned from the public sector bank and remitted the issue regarding interest from the corporation for verification.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing reasonable cause. It further held that the orders of the AO and CIT(A) were cryptic and lacked proper inquiry, setting them aside.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was liable to be condoned because the assessee had filed a rectification petition under Section 154 of the Act. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue on merits after imposing a cost on the assessee.
The Tribunal, following Supreme Court and High Court precedents, held that interest received by a cooperative society from another cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from deposits made in a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal allowed the deduction for interest earned from the cooperative bank, except for the interest on gratuity invested in LIC.
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present the facts. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal, to meet the ends of natural justice, decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present their case. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their claims. The assessee is directed to furnish complete details.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for adjudication on merits. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's failure to respond to earlier notices, decided to provide one last opportunity in the interest of natural justice. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the condonation petition was pending with the CBDT. Therefore, the orders of the CPC and the CIT(A) were set aside and the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal found the explanation for the delay to be unsatisfactory and lacking supporting evidence. The Tribunal concluded that there was no reasonable cause for the significant delay.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of the accumulated income, stating that the assessee failed to provide evidence of utilization within the specified period. The failure to file Form 10 for the current year's accumulation was also noted.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of depreciation on land, stating no depreciation is allowed on land. For expenditure related to exempt income, the issue was set aside to the AO for reconsideration. Losses from joint ventures were treated as capital loss.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of depreciation on land, stating no depreciation is allowed on land. For expenditure related to exempt income, the issue was set aside to the AO for reconsideration. Losses from joint ventures were treated as capital loss.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of depreciation on land, stating no depreciation is allowed on land. For expenditure related to exempt income, the issue was set aside to the AO for reconsideration. Losses from joint ventures were treated as capital loss.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot question the business wisdom of withdrawing cash from the bank. Since the assessee provided evidence of opening cash balance and explained cash withdrawals for expenses, the addition was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that for Section 2(22)(e) to apply, the recipient must be a shareholder of the lending company. Since the assessee companies were not shareholders of M/s. IG3 Infra Limited, the payments could not be taxed as deemed dividend in their hands.
The Tribunal held that for Section 2(22)(e) to apply, the recipient must be a shareholder of the lending company. Since the assessee companies were not shareholders of M/s. IG3 Infra Limited, the payments could not be taxed as deemed dividend in their hands.
The Tribunal held that for Section 2(22)(e) to apply, the recipient must be a shareholder of the lending company. Since the assessee companies were not shareholders of M/s. IG3 Infra Limited, the payments could not be taxed as deemed dividend in their hands.
The Tribunal held that for Section 2(22)(e) to apply, the recipient must be a shareholder of the lending company. Since the assessee companies were not shareholders of M/s. IG3 Infra Limited, the payments could not be taxed as deemed dividend in their hands.
The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice and for substantial justice, set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter back to the AO. The assessee was directed to pay a cost and represent the facts properly.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's submissions, including a confirmation letter from Airtel Payments Bank Ltd. regarding commission income, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the adjournment requests and violating principles of natural justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a reasonable opportunity of hearing, subject to the assessee paying a nominal cost.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and the AO's assessment lacked proper examination of the assessee's agricultural income claim. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not provide sufficient opportunities to the assessee, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the order of the CIT(E) was set aside, and the application was restored for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) because the assessee was pursuing an alternative remedy (rectification application) which remained undecided. The Tribunal also noted that the appellate order was passed in the name of a deceased person, rendering it a nullity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A) because the assessee was pursuing an alternative remedy (rectification application) which was not decided by the AO. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 3 Lacs which was sourced from accepted commission income and Rs. 1 Lac from opening cash balance. The balance addition of Rs. 8.50 Lacs was sustained as unsubstantiated.
The tribunal considered the incorrect form filing as a technical breach. It allowed the assessee to file the correct application in Form 10A under Section 80G(5)(i) and directed the CIT(E) to decide the matter afresh after examining the details.
The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in Shriram Chits and Investments Pvt. Ltd. held that a chit agreement is not a money lending transaction. However, the Tribunal also referred to Oriental Kuries Limited, where the Supreme Court clarified that a prized subscriber incurs a debt payable in installments, and the foreman can recover future subscriptions in case of default.
The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in Shriram Chits and Investments Pvt. Ltd. held that a chit agreement is not a money lending transaction. However, the Tribunal also referred to Oriental Kuries Limited, where the Supreme Court clarified that a prized subscriber incurs a debt payable in installments, and the foreman can recover future subscriptions in case of default.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee was non-cooperative, the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits. Therefore, the assessee deserves another opportunity to present its case before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) confirmed the AO's action in adding unexplained cash deposits. The assessee was asked to provide details and explanation for these deposits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal without providing a sufficient opportunity to the assessee, especially when an adjournment was sought. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay due to the reasonable cause of the wife's illness. However, it found the CIT(A)'s order to be non-speaking. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found substance in the assessee's arguments that the capital might have been introduced in a prior year and that the addition should be considered in the hands of the partners. The AO was directed to reconsider the issue.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided evidence of substantial cash withdrawals prior to the demonetization period. It was held that the cash deposits were explained by these previous withdrawals, and the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the reasons for the delay reasonable due to communication failure. The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte and without proper adjudication on merits, which is not permissible.
The Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal in limini. The assessee's explanation for the delay was not accepted as reasonable, especially since the intimation order was sent to their declared email ID.
The Tribunal held that while opportunities were provided, in the interest of substantial justice, one more opportunity should be granted to the assessee. The orders of the AO and CIT(A) were set aside and the matter was remanded back to the AO.
The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court in Shriram Chits and Investments Pvt. Ltd. held that a chit agreement is not a money lending transaction. However, the Tribunal also referred to Oriental Kuries Limited, where the Supreme Court clarified that a prized subscriber incurs a debt payable in installments, and the foreman can recover future subscriptions in case of default.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete additions related to cash deposits made in new currency notes, considering them as explained business sales. However, it sustained the addition for cash deposits in old currency notes as unexplained income.