Loading ITAT cases…
283 orders · Page 2 of 6
The Tribunal held that the Pr. CIT could not substitute his own view for that of the AO if the AO had taken a plausible view and conducted necessary inquiries, even if partial. The Tribunal noted that similar issues for other years had been decided in favor of the assessee and confirmed by the Tribunal. It also referred to Supreme Court judgments on what constitutes an erroneous and prejudicial order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the circumstances. It was held that the CPC erred in taxing the entire voluntary contribution without considering the expenses incurred for charitable activities, and that only the net income should have been taxed. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the reopening was based on the same material available during the original assessment and constituted a 'borrowed satisfaction' and a change of opinion, which is impermissible. The Tribunal also noted that the addition was made u/s 28(ii) while the reopening was initiated for addition u/s 68, which was not permissible without a fresh notice.
The tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the DTVSV Scheme and therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The assessee was granted liberty to seek restoration of the appeal if the DTVSV resolution failed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had opted for the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme, 2024, and had filed Form-1 on 29.11.2024. The designated authority had issued Form-2 on 24.01.2025, and the assessee was remitting Rs.1,04,62,781/- to settle the tax dispute. The assessee expressed its desire to withdraw the litigation, and the Revenue did not object. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal and the cross-objection. The appeal filed by the Revenue and the cross-objection filed by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn under the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme, 2024. No specific issues were left undecided, as the entire matter was settled under the scheme.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the principle of natural justice. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh hearing, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000, to allow the assessee an opportunity to present their case with evidence.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's decision to resolve the dispute under the DTVSV scheme and treated the appeal as dismissed as withdrawn. Liberty was granted for restoration if the scheme resolution fails.
The Tribunal found that the issue required re-verification at the Assessing Officer (AO) level. The appeal was set aside and remitted back to the AO to call for the necessary vouchers and certificates, with an assurance from the assessee's counsel to provide all requisites.
The Tribunal followed its co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case, holding that recurring deposits are not time deposits and thus not liable for TDS under Section 194A for the relevant assessment years. The disallowance under Section 14A was also deleted, following precedent where the AO had not provided specific reasons for rejecting the assessee's explanation.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard by the Assessing Officer before concluding the assessment, nor were details of the Ld. CIT(A)'s estimation brought on record. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and remitted both issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, directing the AO to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice and relying on the counsel's assurance, set aside the ex-parte dismissal. It remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee, who is also directed to cooperate.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), considering medical exigencies and the principle of natural justice. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh hearing on merits, providing the assessee a proper opportunity to submit evidence.
The Tribunal held that filing of Form 67 is directory in nature, not mandatory, for claiming FTC, relying on previous judgments. The CIT(A) was directed to grant the FTC after verifying Form 67.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remanded the matter back. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to furnish the required details and prosecute the application.
The Tribunal, while acknowledging the assessee's failure to appear and the ex-parte nature of the order, restored the appeal to the AO for denovo assessment, emphasizing the principle of natural justice. The assessee was directed to furnish evidence and pay a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred by not awaiting the outcome of the condonation petition filed under Section 119 with the CBDT for the delayed return verification. The case was therefore remanded to the CIT(A) to reconsider after the CBDT's decision on the condonation petition.
The tribunal observed that the Form 10IC for AY 2023-24 was filed within the extended due date as per the CBDT Circular No. 19/2023. It clarified that Form 10IC is a one-time filing requirement and directed the AO to allow the benefit of Section 115BAA for the assessment year 2023-24.
The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the AO for a denovo assessment, subject to a cost of Rs. 5000/- to be deposited by the assessee. The assessee was directed to provide evidence and documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the assessee's failure to appear, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for a fresh hearing on merits, citing the principle of natural justice.
The Tribunal noted that the appeals were not prosecuted before the CIT(A) because the assessee missed receiving notices. While acknowledging the assessee's default, the Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the AO for denovo assessment.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be given one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(E). The Tribunal set aside the appeals to the file of CIT(E) for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal followed its co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case, holding that recurring deposits are not time deposits and thus not liable for TDS under Section 194A for the relevant assessment years. The disallowance under Section 14A was also deleted, following precedent where the AO had not provided specific reasons for rejecting the assessee's explanation.
The Tribunal held that the AO cannot make presumptive additions based on surmises without proper evidence. The AO also failed to dispute the assessee's books of accounts which showed the deposits as business receipts. Furthermore, the AO did not follow the CBDT's Standard Operating Procedure for demonetization cases and made computational errors.
The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's failure to appear before the CIT(A) and the ex-parte nature of the AO's order, restored the appeal to the AO for de novo assessment. This was done to ensure principles of natural justice, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000 to be paid by the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the appeals were not prosecuted before the CIT(A) because the assessee missed receiving notices. While acknowledging the assessee's default, the Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the impugned orders and restored the appeals to the AO for denovo assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and admitted it. The Tribunal held that the assessee should be given an opportunity to present their claim for exemption under Section 249(4) of the Act before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notices issued under Section 148 were barred by limitation as per Section 149(1)(b) of the amended Act, given the escaped income was below Rs. 50 lakhs. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were set aside.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) erred by not awaiting the CBDT's decision on the assessee's condonation petition u/s 119 for validating the delayed return of income. Consequently, the case was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication on all issues after the CBDT's order on the condonation petition.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notices issued under Section 148 were barred by limitation as per Section 149(1)(b) of the amended Act, given the escaped income was below Rs. 50 lakhs. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the burden of proof by submitting gift deeds, patta, encumbrance certificates, and aerial photographs. The expenses claimed as cost of improvement were allowed.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeals as they had opted for the Vivad-Se-Vishwas Scheme. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) considering the Covid-19 pandemic. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo hearing on merits.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of PF and ESIC contributions was justified, as per the Supreme Court's ruling, and the "Checkmate Services" judgment applies retrospectively. However, the issue regarding the Section 80JJAA deduction was remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's reasons for the delay (age and incorrect contact information leading to non-receipt of communication) were sufficient cause. The delay was condoned, and the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.
The Tribunal, invoking the principle of natural justice, set aside the ex-parte orders passed by both the AO and CIT(A). It restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for a fresh de novo hearing, granting the assessee another opportunity to present evidence, subject to depositing a cost of Rs.1,000 per appeal.
The Tribunal, invoking the principle of natural justice, set aside the ex-parte orders passed by both the AO and CIT(A). It restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for a fresh de novo hearing, granting the assessee another opportunity to present evidence, subject to depositing a cost of Rs.1,000 per appeal.
The Tribunal, invoking the principle of natural justice, set aside the ex-parte orders passed by both the AO and CIT(A). It restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for a fresh de novo hearing, granting the assessee another opportunity to present evidence, subject to depositing a cost of Rs.1,000 per appeal.
The Tribunal, invoking the principle of natural justice, set aside the ex-parte orders passed by both the AO and CIT(A). It restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for a fresh de novo hearing, granting the assessee another opportunity to present evidence, subject to depositing a cost of Rs.1,000 per appeal.
The Tribunal, invoking the principle of natural justice, set aside the ex-parte orders passed by both the AO and CIT(A). It restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for a fresh de novo hearing, granting the assessee another opportunity to present evidence, subject to depositing a cost of Rs.1,000 per appeal.
The Tribunal, invoking the principle of natural justice, set aside the ex-parte orders passed by both the AO and CIT(A). It restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for a fresh de novo hearing, granting the assessee another opportunity to present evidence, subject to depositing a cost of Rs.1,000 per appeal.
The Tribunal, invoking the principle of natural justice, set aside the ex-parte orders passed by both the AO and CIT(A). It restored the appeals to the CIT(A) for a fresh de novo hearing, granting the assessee another opportunity to present evidence, subject to depositing a cost of Rs.1,000 per appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting the explanation provided in the affidavits regarding the trustee's unfamiliarity with online procedures. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that in view of the principles of natural justice, the assessee should be given another opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside, and the matter was remitted back.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to COVID-19 and accepted the assessee's plea of not receiving notices. Respecting the principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the AO for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Observing that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee paying costs of Rs. 10,000/-.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for a de novo hearing. This was to provide the assessee an opportunity to present her case, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, noting the explanation provided in the affidavits regarding the trustee's unfamiliarity with online procedures. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matters back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10B is a procedural requirement and not a mandatory condition for claiming exemption. Following various High Court and Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) is allowable only to the extent of the actual provision made by the assessee for bad and doubtful debts in its books of account, subject to the ceiling prescribed by the section. It is not allowable to the extent of the maximum prescribed limit irrespective of the actual provision made.
The Tribunal held that the deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) is allowable only to the extent of the actual provision made by the assessee for bad and doubtful debts in its books of account, subject to the ceiling prescribed by the section. It is not allowable to the extent of the maximum prescribed limit irrespective of the actual provision made.