Loading ITAT cases…
343 orders · Page 2 of 7
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals with a cost. For AY 2018-19, the deduction was allowed based on a prior condonation order by the Chief Commissioner. For AY 2019-20, the disallowance under Section 143(1) was deleted as the amended provisions allowing such disallowance were not applicable for that assessment year.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee sought withdrawal of the appeal and, with no objection from the respondent, allowed the prayer. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, stating that the assessee should not be penalized for the fault of their auditor. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) order was passed ex-parte for non-compliance. Upholding principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and remitted the matter back for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that CBDT Circular No. 7/2024 extended the due date for filing Form 10A/10AB to June 30, 2024, and allowed for fresh applications even if previously rejected. Since the assessee intended to file a fresh application within the extended period, the appeal was rendered infructuous.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to the assessee to file a condonation application with supporting documents. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the application and decide the appeal on merits if the delay is condoned.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on merits, as there was no advance tax payable and nothing on record to suggest the assessee admitted any advance tax.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's prayer to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that if the recipient parties have declared the income in their respective returns, the disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) is not to be made, following the beneficial principle of applying non-jurisdictional High Court decisions. The disallowance was reversed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons provided by the assessee to be reasonable. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Exemptions) and restored the application back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee made a technical mistake in selecting the wrong sub-clause for the application. The order of the CIT(Exemption) was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the rejection was based on a technicality and the assessee should have been given an opportunity to rectify the mistake. The CIT(E) is directed to provide an opportunity to the assessee to correct the application and consider it on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication on the application filed under the correct section.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating on the merits of the case. To meet the ends of justice, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the case for de-novo assessment to the AO. This was done to provide the assessee with another opportunity of hearing, adhering to the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons reasonable. It held that the CIT(Exemptions) should have provided a proper and adequate opportunity to the assessee, adhering to principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide an effective opportunity of hearing to the appellant to explain the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal noted a subsequent CBDT circular extending the due date for filing such applications. In the interest of justice, the assessee was given an opportunity to re-apply.
The Tribunal held that the timeline for filing Form No.10AB should be treated as directory and not mandatory, following a coordinate bench's decision and a Madras High Court ruling. The extended timeline of 30.09.2023, as per CBDT Circular, was deemed applicable.
The Tribunal held that the timeline for filing Form No.10AB should be treated as directory and not mandatory, following a co-ordinate bench decision and a Madras High Court ruling. The application was to be considered on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, restoring the appeal to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. This was done to grant the assessee an opportunity to be heard and to ensure the detailed reply filed was considered.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy late fees under Section 234E while processing TDS returns under Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision at that time. The late fee charged was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal noted a subsequent CBDT circular extending the due date for such applications. Considering this development and in the interest of justice, the assessee was given an opportunity to re-approach the CIT(E) for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy late fees under Section 234E while processing TDS returns under Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision at that time. The late fee charged was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy late fees under Section 234E while processing TDS returns under Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision at that time. The late fee charged was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the error was unintentional. Considering the interest of natural justice, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted a subsequent CBDT circular extending the due date for such applications. Therefore, the assessee should be given an opportunity to re-apply.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy late fees under Section 234E while processing TDS returns under Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision at that time. The late fee charged was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal noted a subsequent CBDT circular extending the due date for filing such applications and allowing fresh applications in cases where the original was rejected solely for delay. Therefore, the assessee was given an opportunity to re-approach the CIT(E).
The Tribunal held that the assessee made a technical mistake in selecting the wrong sub-clause for the application. The order of the CIT(Exemption) was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the timeline for filing Form No. 10AB should be treated as directory and not mandatory, following a co-ordinate bench's decision and a Madras High Court ruling. The CIT(Exemptions) was directed to consider the application on merits.
The Tribunal held that the timeline for filing Form No. 10AB should be treated as directory, not mandatory, considering the transitional nature of amendments and CBDT circulars. Following a co-ordinate bench decision and a Madras High Court ruling, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order.
The Tribunal noted a subsequent CBDT circular extending the due date for filing such applications. Therefore, the assessee was given an opportunity to re-apply and the CIT(E) was directed to consider the fresh application.
The Tribunal held that the rejection was on a technical ground due to an inadvertent mistake by the assessee. The assessee should have been given an opportunity to rectify the application.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy late fees under Section 234E while processing TDS returns under Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision at that time. The late fee charged was deemed invalid.
The Tribunal noted a subsequent CBDT circular extending the due date for filing such applications. Considering this development, the assessee was given an opportunity to re-apply.
The Tribunal held that the timeline for filing Form No.10AB should be treated as directory and not mandatory, following a co-ordinate bench decision and a Madras High Court ruling. The CIT(Exemptions) was directed to consider the application on merits.
The Tribunal noted a subsequent CBDT circular extending the due date for such applications. In the interest of justice, the assessee was given an opportunity to re-apply.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering a subsequent CBDT circular extending the due date for such applications, the assessee was given an opportunity to re-apply.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not levy late fees under Section 234E while processing TDS returns under Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as there was no enabling provision at that time. The levy of late fee was therefore invalid.
The Tribunal held that the timeline for filing Form No. 10AB should be treated as directory, not mandatory, considering CBDT circulars and High Court decisions. The application should be considered on merits.
The Tribunal noted a subsequent CBDT circular extending the due date for such applications and allowing re-filing. Therefore, the assessee was given an opportunity to approach the CIT(E) for reconsideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering a subsequent CBDT circular extending the due date and allowing fresh applications, the Tribunal directed the assessee to approach the CIT(E) for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were trade receipts and not income to be added under Section 68. It also restricted the addition for business income to the gross profit shown by the assessee, considering the limited period of business activity.
The Tribunal noted a subsequent CBDT circular extending the due date for such applications. Therefore, the assessee was given an opportunity to re-apply and the CIT(E) was directed to reconsider the application in light of the circular.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without hearing the assessee. To ensure justice, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the legal issue raised by the assessee concerning the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on this specific legal point.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the technical ground of not filing a petition for additional evidence. It noted that the AO's addition was based on an inadvertent mistake in the return and that the assessee had provided explanations and documents.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was bound to decide the statutory appeal on merits and could not dismiss it without condoning the delay or discussing the grounds. The Tribunal also noted that the AO had passed the assessment order without giving proper opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the application, granting the assessee one more opportunity to submit the required documents. The CIT(E) was directed to decide the application on merits after providing a proper opportunity.