Loading ITAT cases…
343 orders · Page 3 of 7
The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision, holding that the assessment order giving effect to the PCIT's revisionary order was null and void. This was based on the principle that if the foundation of proceedings is removed, all consequential orders fall.
The tribunal set aside the ex parte orders of the CIT(A) and restored the appeals to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to pass an order in accordance with the law after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that disallowing expenses when documents were impounded by the department was arbitrary. For ends of justice and fair play, the case was restored to the AO for de novo assessment after the assessee obtained the necessary documents.
The Tribunal held that the time limit for filing the application under Section 80G(5)(iii) should be treated as directory and not mandatory, especially considering the transitional nature of amendments and the extended timelines provided by CBDT circulars. The CIT(E) should not have rejected the application solely on technical grounds.
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.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the ill health of the Managing Trustee. The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not provide a proper opportunity to the assessee to submit the required documents and therefore set aside the order.
The Tribunal held that the belated filing of the TAR was a technical breach, as the TAR was available with the AO before the assessment orders were framed. The assessee's explanation for the delay due to non-finalization of accounts was found reasonable.
The Tribunal held that disallowing expenses when documents were impounded by the department was arbitrary. For ends of justice and fair play, the case was restored to the AO for de novo assessment after the assessee obtained the necessary documents.
The Tribunal held that the belated filing of the TAR was a technical breach, as the TAR was available with the AO before the assessment orders were framed. The assessee's explanation for the delay due to non-finalization of accounts was found reasonable.
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(E) rejected the application without providing the assessee an opportunity to rectify the mistake. Therefore, the order of the CIT(E) was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 442 days, stating the assessee was unaware of the CPC's order and had the Tax Audit Report in hand before filing the return. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal was set aside, and the case was restored for a decision on merits.
The tribunal set aside the ex parte orders of the CIT(A) and restored the appeals to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to pass an order in accordance with the law after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the AO had not recorded his satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings in the assessment order. This omission vitiates the penalty levied.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing reasonable cause. The impugned order was set aside, and the application was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO's failure to issue a mandatory notice under Section 143(2) before framing the assessment under Section 144 r.w.s. 147 vitiates the assessment. The assessment order is therefore null and void.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be reasonable. It held that the extended timeline for filing Form No. 10AB, as per CBDT Circulars and High Court pronouncements, should apply, and the CIT(Exemption) should decide the applications on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be reasonable. It held that the extended timeline for filing Form No. 10AB, as per CBDT Circulars and High Court pronouncements, should apply, and the CIT(Exemption) should decide the applications on merits.
The Tribunal noted a subsequent CBDT circular extending the due date for such applications. Considering this development, the assessee was given an opportunity to re-apply.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the assessee's plea for withdrawal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's reason for the delay, which was the appointment of a consultant from a cooperative society to handle tax matters, constituted a sufficient cause. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals.
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 accepted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that once the Assessing Officer accepts the return filed under Section 153A, the original return under Section 139 abates. Concealment must be judged with reference to the return filed under Section 153A, not the original return.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) erred by rejecting the applications solely on technical grounds without allowing the assessees to correct the clerical error. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's reason for the delay, which was the appointment of a consultant from a cooperative society to handle tax matters, constituted a sufficient cause. The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals.
The Tribunal held that the extended timeline of 30.09.2023, as per CBDT Circulars and considering the Madras High Court's decision, should apply to Form No. 10AB. Therefore, the rejection solely on the ground of limitation was set aside.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) erred by rejecting the applications solely on technical grounds without allowing the assessees to correct the clerical error. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) erred by rejecting the applications solely on technical grounds without allowing the assessees to correct the clerical error. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be reasonable. It held that the extended timeline for filing Form No. 10AB, as per CBDT Circulars and High Court pronouncements, should apply, and the CIT(Exemption) should decide the applications on merits.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(Exemptions) for a fresh application to be considered. The assessee was advised to file a new application as per a recent CBDT circular extending the deadline.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) erred by rejecting the applications solely on technical grounds without allowing the assessees to correct the clerical error. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) erred by rejecting the applications solely on technical grounds without allowing the assessees to correct the clerical error. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the extended timeline of 30.09.2023, as per CBDT Circulars and considering the Madras High Court's decision, should apply to Form No. 10AB. Therefore, the rejection solely on the ground of limitation was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the extended timeline of 30.09.2023, as per CBDT Circulars and considering the Madras High Court's decision, should apply to Form No. 10AB. Therefore, the rejection solely on the ground of limitation was set aside.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)-NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal as unadmitted, as the assessee had paid self-assessment tax, which does not bar an appeal. The order of the CIT(A)-NFAC was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) erred by rejecting the applications solely on technical grounds without allowing the assessees to correct the clerical error. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to file a new application, and the CIT(Exemptions) was instructed to consider it on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons provided to be reasonable. The order of the CIT(E) rejecting the registration application was set aside and the issue was remitted back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had inadvertently mentioned 'religious cum charitable' and intended to pursue only charitable activities. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding the reasons provided by the assessees to be reasonable. It held that the extended timeline for filing Form No. 10AB, as per CBDT Circulars and High Court pronouncements, should apply, and the CIT(Exemption) should decide the applications on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)-NFAC's order was ex-parte and lacked proper adjudication on merits. It was unclear if notices were served on the assessee, and in the interest of justice, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's illness. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside as it lacked adjudication on merits, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer for withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
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-apply.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not examine the genuineness of the trust's activities and that the order was passed without proper adjudication. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not conduct sufficient enquiry to dispute the debtors' balances and failed to establish that the credits were the assessee's own money. Therefore, the addition under Section 68 was not sustainable.