Loading ITAT cases…
345 orders · Page 3 of 7
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It was found that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals ex-parte without proper verification. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT erred in invoking section 263 as the AO had made due inquiries and accepted the assessee's submissions after considering the replies. A second view cannot be taken under section 263 on the same facts already discussed and accepted in the original assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, acknowledging the assessee's reasons. However, they deprecated the assessee's nonchalant attitude. Despite this, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the FAA for fresh adjudication with a reasonable opportunity for the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals, accepted the assessee's explanation of being engaged in social work, and found that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals, accepted the assessee's explanation of being engaged in social work, and found that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity.
The ITAT observed that the Assessing Officer had already granted relief for the transfer expenses of ₹2,20,000 via a rectification order under Section 154 dated 26.11.2019, based on evidence submitted by the assessee before the original assessment. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s confirmation of this disallowance was found unjustified and was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals, accepted the assessee's explanation of being engaged in social work, and found that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals, accepted the assessee's explanation of being engaged in social work, and found that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity.
The Tribunal found that the PCIT's order was passed without providing sufficient opportunity for hearing to the assessee and within a very short timeframe after the hearing dates. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the PCIT's order and directed a fresh opportunity for hearing.
The Tribunal held that the addition of ₹.15,00,000/- to the assessee's total income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not entirely maintainable as the cash did not belong to the assessee. The assessee was able to establish the ownership of ₹.12,80,000/- (₹.11,00,000/- belonging to Shri S. Jagadeesan and ₹.1,80,000/- belonging to Jagadeesan's son) through confirmations and bank statements. However, the balance amount of ₹.2,20,000/- remained unexplained. Therefore, the addition to the extent of ₹.2,20,000/- was confirmed under Section 69A. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's grounds (7 & 8) seeking to restrict any addition to 8% of the seized cash, as the unexplained amount of ₹.2,20,000/- could not be treated as business income due to the failure to explain its nature and acquisition. The appeal was partly allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering the assessee's contention that hearing notices were not served on the correct email ID, the matter was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the appeal fees paid were correct as per Section 253(6)(d) of the Income Tax Act, when an appeal is dismissed on grounds other than merits. The Tribunal admitted the appeal for adjudication and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application based on suspicion and surmises. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided evidence of its activities and directed the CIT(E) to re-examine the application.
The Tribunal held that the AO's sole reason for addition, that SBNs were not legal tender, was previously rejected by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient details regarding the source of cash deposits as trading receipts.
The Tribunal held that the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, includes 'associate/nominal members' and that these members are also 'members' as per Section 2(16) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal held that since a part of the consideration was paid by banking channels before the agreement date, and the agreement fixing consideration was prior to registration, the stamp duty value as on the agreement date should be considered.
The Tribunal held that the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, includes 'associate/nominal members' and that these members are also 'members' as per Section 2(16) of the Act. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the deduction u/s.80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal held that interest income derived from deposits made with a co-operative bank, which is registered under the relevant Co-operative Societies Act, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). This was based on the Tribunal's own decisions and the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court.
The Tribunal held that interest income derived from deposits made with a co-operative bank, which is registered under the relevant Co-operative Societies Act, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). This was based on the Tribunal's own decisions and the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court.
The Tribunal held that interest income derived from deposits made with a co-operative bank, which is registered under the relevant Co-operative Societies Act, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). This was based on the Tribunal's own decisions and the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court.
The Tribunal held that the FAA had no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal for non-compliance without adjudicating on merits. It also condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient reasons for the belated filing. It held that an appellate authority cannot dismiss an appeal for non-compliance without considering the merits and that the FAA's order was bad in law. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding additional depreciation and depreciation on brand value, and also the deletion of disallowance for export commission. The tribunal also confirmed the CIT(A)'s allowance of deduction for CSR expenditure under Section 80G, following a coordinate bench's decision.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding additional depreciation and depreciation on brand value, and also the deletion of disallowance for export commission. The tribunal also confirmed the CIT(A)'s allowance of deduction for CSR expenditure under Section 80G, following a coordinate bench's decision.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's submission that the current appeal was a duplicate and thus infructuous. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that an appellate authority lacks jurisdiction to dismiss an appeal for default of non-compliance without deciding its merits. Citing a Madras High Court decision, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)-NFAC's order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits, granting the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and directing cooperation with the Revenue.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding additional depreciation and depreciation on brand value, and also the deletion of disallowance for export commission. The tribunal also confirmed the CIT(A)'s allowance of deduction for CSR expenditure under Section 80G, following a coordinate bench's decision.
The Tribunal held that the AO's reliance on a High Court judgment was misplaced as the facts were distinguishable. The Tribunal found that the reassessment order was passed beyond the time limits prescribed under Section 144C, thus quashing the reassessment order.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order and the appellate order were passed pursuant to a revision order which had already been quashed by the Tribunal. Therefore, the assessment and appellate orders did not survive and were set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had filed a condonation petition and obtained a favorable order, leading to the withdrawal of the appeal. The Revenue's DR had no objection. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that the FAA order was ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance with notices. However, considering the interest of justice and fair play, the matter was restored to the FAA for fresh adjudication with a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal held that since a prior order from the CIT(A) had already been passed and confirmed by the Tribunal, the subsequent order by the FAA was infructuous. Therefore, the FAA's order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the AO's reliance on a High Court judgment was misplaced as the facts were distinguishable. The Tribunal found that the reassessment order was passed beyond the time limits prescribed under Section 144C, thus quashing the reassessment order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the assessee's ill health and lack of literacy as sufficient reasons. It noted that the assessment orders were ex-parte best judgment assessments due to non-compliance with notices.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, citing the assessee's ill health and lack of literacy as sufficient reasons. It noted that the assessment orders were ex-parte best judgment assessments due to non-compliance with notices.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the FAA's order, and remitted the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee's explanation for the delay due to COVID-19 and a family death was accepted.
The Tribunal held that since the CPC correctly computed the tax under the old regime, the assessee is entitled to claim deductions under Sections 80C and 80TTA of the Act.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's reasons reasonable. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not dealt with the merits of the case and that the lower authorities had not comprehensively analyzed the sources of property. The Tribunal found it appropriate to give the assessee one last opportunity to present evidence to the AO.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Upon perusing the payment details, it appeared that payments were made beyond the due dates. To ensure justice, the matter was remitted to the AO for verification of actual payment dates regarding ESI and EPF.
The Tribunal held that the addition for cash deposits was unwarranted as the AO himself noted sufficient cash balance. However, the addition for unverified expenses was confirmed as fair and reasonable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the order of the CIT(A). The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for readjudication after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard. The CIT(A) was also directed to condone the delay in filing the appeal before him.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting that the assessee had paid the appeal fees and there was no wilful attempt to delay. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had passed ex-parte orders without sufficient opportunity and directed the Assessing Officer to re-adjudicate the matter de novo after providing a hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay after accepting the assessee's justifications. It remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for readjudication on merits, directing that the assessee be given a proper hearing, subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as costs.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was absent and had requested an adjournment. While the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-compliance, the Tribunal found that the merits of the case were not adequately addressed. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for readjudication.
The Tribunal noted that if the income was declared under the Income Declaration Scheme 2016 and accepted by the revenue, it could not be taxed again. The case was remitted for verification.
The Tribunal held that the establishment of madrasas for religious education qualifies as a charitable purpose under section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act. The mere fact that the trust activities involved members of a particular community or assistance to the needy for religious activities does not divest it of its charitable character.
The Tribunal held that the ends of justice would be met by setting aside the order to the CIT(A) for readjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to condone the delay and give an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that justice would be met if the case is set aside to the CIT(A) for readjudication after giving an opportunity of hearing. The CIT(A) was directed to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that once an assessee opts for the presumptive taxation under Section 44BB, no further additions or disallowances are permissible. The disallowance made under Section 143(1) was therefore incorrect.