Loading ITAT cases…
337 orders · Page 4 of 7
The Tribunal condoned a minor delay in filing the appeal. It noted that the assessee could not revise the return due to the timeline lapse and that the CIT(A) had confirmed the AO's order without sufficient grounds. The Tribunal estimated profits from the sales turnover.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was operating a single composite educational institution, as evidenced by a single composite license and affiliation certificate showing classes from 1 to 10. Therefore, the total receipts exceeded the Rs.1 crore limit for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad).
The Tribunal found that the assessee contended that the deductees had accounted for the receipts and paid tax. Since the Assessing Officer did not have the opportunity to verify this, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification.
The Tribunal noted that no demand survives after an NCLT approved resolution plan is passed. The CIT(A) had failed to consider the NCLT orders.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal before the CIT(A) was against the order passed under section 143(3) where no fresh additions were made, and thus the contest was ipso facto non-maintainable. The Tribunal also observed that the CIT(A) had not passed a speaking order. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination and readjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not consider the assessee's submissions regarding being treated as an AOP under Section 164(2) of the Act. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to determine net income by considering the assessee's submissions.
The Tribunal noted that the AO's order was not a speaking order and lacked clear facts, and the assessee's compliance was unsatisfactory. However, to meet the ends of justice, the assessee was given one last opportunity to present their case before the AO.
The Tribunal held that contractual workers engaged by the assessee should be counted towards the minimum of 10 workers required for the deduction. The Tribunal also found that the volume of sales indicated that contractual workers were indeed involved in manufacturing activities.
The Tribunal noted that the orders passed by the AO were not speaking orders and lacked clear facts, with indications of inadequate inquiries. The Tribunal found that inadequate submission of details and evidences were at the core of the controversy.
The Tribunal recognized that the current appeal's outcome is linked to the pending decision by PCIT-2 regarding the assessee's Section 12AA registration. Consequently, the case was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to await PCIT-2's decision and then readjudicate the assessment afresh.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. The Tribunal ruled that the substance of Form-10 should take precedence over procedural requirements, and the AO should have focused on verifying its contents. This decision was supported by judicial precedents from the Allahabad High Court and Jodhpur ITAT.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the matter back to the Ld. AO for re-adjudication de novo. The Ld. AO was directed to pass a fresh order after giving due opportunity to the assessee, who in turn was directed to comply with all statutory notices. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that no case for TDS deduction under Section 194J was made out on the clearing/professional charges paid to CCIL. The Tribunal found that the transactions were automatically deducted by CCIL and the assessee had no control over it, thus setting aside the order of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal sustained the lower authorities' orders, finding the assessee consistently failed to provide any supporting evidence for the cash deposits or to challenge the ex-parte orders. It held that Section 80AC correctly applied, mandating return filing under Section 139(1) for claiming beneficial deductions, thereby upholding the disallowance of Section 80P.
The tribunal, following the jurisdictional Madras High Court's decision, held that the notice issued under Section 148 by the JAO was invalid as it contravened the e-assessment scheme formulated by the CBDT Notification of 29.03.2022. The impugned notice and consequential orders were set aside, with a provision for revival if the Revenue succeeds before the Apex Court.
The Tribunal remanded the case back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This is subject to the assessee paying ₹.5,000/- to the State Legal Aid Authority within 30 days. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to provide the assessee an opportunity of being heard and decide the issues afresh, including specific grounds previously unadjudicated.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the justification adequate and not willful. It set aside the ACIT(E)'s ex-parte order due to lack of due opportunity for hearing and contradictory findings. The matter was remitted back to the ACIT(E) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, after providing a proper hearing and passing a speaking order.
The Tribunal held that no case for TDS deduction under Section 194J was made out on the clearing/professional charges paid to CCIL. The Tribunal found that the transactions were automatically deducted by CCIL and the assessee had no control over it, thus setting aside the order of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear on the date of hearing and failed to provide any justification for the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as being filed beyond the statutory timelines.
The Tribunal held that unverified digital entries from a third party, uncorroborated and denied by the assessee, are insufficient to sustain additions. The pen drive was considered a 'dumb document' without independent corroboration.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed that the assessee provided reasons for the delay (lack of awareness, technical issues) and had filed a notarized affidavit. In the interest of justice, the ITAT remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal on its merits.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance but considered an undertaking to cooperate. In the interest of justice, the matters were remanded to the Assessing Officer, subject to a cost payment, to allow the assessee to substantiate their claims.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was incorrect in concluding that the purpose of the jewel loan was not mentioned. The Tribunal also found that the assessee had provided explanations and documentary evidence for cash deposits arising from lease agreements, which should have been accepted.
The Tribunal noted that the tax effect was less than the prescribed limit and the Revenue's DR conceded this fact. Therefore, the appeal was held to be not maintainable.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s method of adopting cost inflation index instead of actual value for gold and diamond jewellery was not justified. The Tribunal also accepted the assessee's contentions regarding sreedhanam and birthday gifts, and found justification for the value of jewellery shown in the balance sheet.
The Tribunal held that unverified digital entries from a third party, uncorroborated and denied by the assessee, are insufficient to sustain additions. The pen drive was considered a 'dumb document' without independent corroboration.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee has filed a rectification petition to modify the sale deed to correct the mention of cash receipt and has undertaken to provide the rectification order, the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after the rectification order is received.
The Tribunal held that unverified digital entries from a third party, uncorroborated and denied by the assessee, are insufficient to sustain additions. The pen drive was considered a 'dumb document' without independent corroboration.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance but considered an undertaking to cooperate. In the interest of justice, the matters were remanded to the Assessing Officer, subject to a cost payment, to allow the assessee to substantiate their claims.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Long Term Capital Loss. The Tribunal found that the AO's concerns regarding the sham nature of the transactions, based on abnormal features and lack of genuine business activity in the investee companies, were valid.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 32,00,000/- as unexplained sundry creditors was unsustainable as the assessee had explained the nature and source. The addition of Rs. 60,00,000/- for unexplained investment was also deleted as there was no evidence of investment and taxing it again would lead to double taxation.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that the assessee had provided sufficient explanation and evidence for the cash deposits and withdrawals. The Tribunal found that the AO was not justified in making additions under Sections 69A and 69C.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment was completed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B, with the notice under section 148 issued on 31.03.2021 and the return filed on 14.03.2022, just 16 days before the limitation period expired. Considering the voluminous paper book and the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal. While acknowledging the assessee's failure to furnish evidence, the Tribunal noted that the assessment was completed under section 143(3) and the assessee's assistance was necessary for additions under section 69A. Considering the interest of justice, the matter was remanded to the CIT(A) with a condition.
The Tribunal held that unverified digital entries from a third party, uncorroborated and denied by the assessee, are insufficient to sustain additions. The pen drive was considered a 'dumb document' without independent corroboration.
The Tribunal condoned a 32-day delay in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's reasons as bona fide. It remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, instructing to provide the assessee one more opportunity to furnish the necessary details for both registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G. The appeals were consequently allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of pre-commencement business expenditure requires fresh consideration by the Assessing Officer. It also held that foreign tax credit should be considered even with belated filing of Form 67, and the matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer for verification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activity of conducting historic cars rallies does not fit the definition of charitable purposes under Section 2(15) of the Act. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(E)'s order rejecting the application.
The Tribunal condoned a 32-day delay in filing the appeals, accepting the assessee's reasons as bona fide. It remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, instructing to provide the assessee one more opportunity to furnish the necessary details for both registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G. The appeals were consequently allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that unverified digital entries from a third party, uncorroborated and denied by the assessee, are insufficient to sustain additions. The pen drive was considered a 'dumb document' without independent corroboration.
The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the belated filing of the appeal, considering circumstances beyond the assessee's control and the condonation of delay by the CCIT for the return filing. Therefore, the CIT(A) was directed to condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the assessee's non-compliance before the AO and CIT(A), the Tribunal granted one final opportunity, remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, subject to the assessee paying ₹25,000/- as costs.
The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing Form 10B was condoned by the CIT(E). The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO to give effect to the CIT(E)'s order and allow the claim under sections 11 & 12.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned from investments in banks is attributable to the business of providing credit facilities and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal followed its own earlier decisions in the assessee's own case.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the AO and CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for denovo assessment. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to substantiate their case before the AO, subject to payment of costs and production of proof of payment.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the AO and CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for denovo assessment. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to substantiate their case before the AO, subject to payment of costs and production of proof of payment.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the AO and CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for denovo assessment. The assessee was granted one more opportunity to substantiate their case before the AO, subject to payment of costs and production of proof of payment.
The Tribunal noted that the appellate proceedings were ex-parte due to the assessee's non-compliance with hearing notices. However, considering the assessee's submission that notices were not properly served, the matter was remitted to the FAA for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the hearing notices were sent to the assessee's old email ID, which was not in operation, leading to non-receipt of notices. Therefore, the matter was restored to the FAA for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that for reopening an assessment beyond four years, it must be established that income escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. The reasons recorded did not provide any whisper of such failure.