Loading ITAT cases…
337 orders · Page 5 of 7
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 held that the rejection of the application without providing a proper opportunity to the assessee was not justified. The Tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration, subject to payment of costs and affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal, as the Departmental Representative did not object to the prayer. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment after four years was not valid. The reasons recorded by the AO did not demonstrate that the escapement of income was due to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts, nor was there any fresh tangible material to justify reopening.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deduction was based on a bona fide belief, supported by the prevailing Madras High Court judgment in CIT v. M/s. Industrial Security & Intelligence India Pvt Ltd at the time of filing the return, which allowed such deductions if paid before the return filing due date. Since all facts were disclosed in the tax audit report, the assessee's action could not be termed as misreporting of income. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 270A was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the AO passed the order without hearing the assessee and that the assessee's assertion that its claim is valid and needs to be examined by the AO. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the assessment back to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, upon the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals due to them becoming infructuous, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The assessee requested the appeal be dismissed as withdrawn, and the DR had no objection. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, granting liberty to restore it if the application before the Designated Authority is rejected.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's circumstances (rural location, limited literacy, lack of digital exposure) and admitted the appeal. The Tribunal also found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay, without addressing the merits. Thus, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding a reasonable cause. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication, providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the delay was significantly covered by the Supreme Court's suo moto extension of limitation during the Covid-19 pandemic. The remaining delay was attributed to the assessee's auditor being hospitalized due to Covid-19. The Tribunal condoned the delay, allowing the appeal for statistical purposes, and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal, invoking principles of natural justice, set aside the CIT(E)'s ex-parte order. It restored the application for registration back to the CIT(E)'s file, directing the CIT(E) to issue fresh notices and provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard before passing a speaking order.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) passed an ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-response to the show-cause notice. While deprecating the assessee's attitude, the Tribunal, in the interest of justice, granted one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay. It held that the Assessing Officer could not levy late fee under Section 234E for processing TDS returns under Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling provision (Section 200A(1)(c)) was introduced later.
The Tribunal determined that the assessee's mistake was inadvertent and not intentional. It set aside the Ld.CIT(E)'s order and directed the Ld.CIT(E) to treat the application as if filed under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) and grant provisional registration u/s.12AB for five years from AY 2022-23, after verifying relevant documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging sufficient cause. Applying principles of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without sufficient opportunity for the assessee. The Tribunal condoned a one-day delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remitting the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's non-compliance was not intentional, due to business stress and financial difficulties, the penalty levied for non-compliance with notices should be viewed leniently. Therefore, a portion of the penalty was confirmed, and a portion was deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding a reasonable cause for the assessee. It noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without sufficient opportunity for the assessee and therefore set aside the CIT(A)'s order, remitting the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It was held that the rejection of the application by the CIT(E) was ex-parte, and the assessee should be given another opportunity in the interest of natural justice.
The Tribunal noted that both the AO and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without giving the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. In the interest of natural justice, the assessee was granted another opportunity to present their case before the AO.
The Tribunal condoned both the 17-day delay in filing the appeal before the ITAT and the 92-day delay in filing before the CIT(A), finding reasonable cause and excusable reasons. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and the AO's ex parte assessment, restoring the matter to the AO for a de novo assessment after hearing the assessee, subject to the assessee paying Rs.10,000/- as cost to the State Legal Aid Authority.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, considering the reasons provided by the assessee. The Tribunal, in the interest of natural justice, set aside the orders of the AO and CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for de novo adjudication, subject to payment of costs.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance and deprecated the nonchalant attitude. However, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted to the FAA for fresh adjudication with an opportunity for the assessee to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s rejection of the application was unsustainable. The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided substantial evidence of its predominant object being medical relief to the poor at nominal charges and that the existence of a surplus or minimal charges did not render the activities commercial, especially when such surplus was incidental or reinvested.
The Tribunal held that income earned by a cooperative society from investments in a cooperative bank registered under the relevant cooperative societies act is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Following High Court and Tribunal precedents, the revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and noted that the assessee had failed to participate in proceedings before both the AO and the CIT(A). The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the AO for a denovo assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging a reasonable cause due to the trust's internal turmoil and the treasurer's health issues. The order of the CIT(E) was set aside, and the application was restored for fresh consideration with a direction to issue notices and provide an adequate opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's reasons including professional guidance failure and the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was invalid due to lack of prior approval, making the reassessment order non est. Consequently, the revision proceedings under Section 263 were also void. The PCIT could not revise the assessment on grounds unrelated to the original reopening reasons.
The Tribunal condoned the delay. It held that the Assessing Officer could not levy late fee under Section 234E for processing TDS returns under Section 200A for periods prior to June 1, 2015, as the enabling provision (Section 200A(1)(c)) was introduced later.
The Tribunal held that a return filed under Section 142(1) before the assessment order is passed is valid for claiming deduction under Section 80P. The Tribunal followed a previous decision of a coordinate bench on a similar issue.
The Tribunal held that the salary cost was part of the AE segment and had already been accepted as at arm's length under the TNMM method. Therefore, the TPO was not justified in separately adjusting the salary cross-charge. Regarding other grounds, the Tribunal directed the authorities to dispose of pending applications and appeals related to the intimation order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. However, upon the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals due to them becoming infructuous, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the reasons for the delay provided by the assessee constitute sufficient cause. It was observed that the intimation was never received by the assessee and the department failed to produce it. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It set aside the ex parte orders, citing a violation of natural justice, and restored the matter to the AO for a de novo assessment. The penalty levied was also set aside and restored.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause. It set aside the ex parte orders, citing a violation of natural justice, and restored the matter to the AO for a de novo assessment. The penalty levied was also set aside and restored.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of withdrawals from other bank accounts and affidavits from parents to explain the cash deposits. The AO had not discharged the onus to disprove the assessee's explanation, and the discretion under Section 69A was not exercised properly.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient income from business and agriculture, and the cash deposit was bona fide and acceptable. The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) erred in making the addition without considering the assessee's explanation and relevant evidence.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in rejecting the additional evidence solely because it was not produced before the AO. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO to examine the documentary evidence and decide the issue on merits, directing the assessee to furnish all evidence.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to examine the reconciliation statement to be filed by the assessee and decide the issue on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the assessee to file an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit for fresh consideration and decide the appeal denovo.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee had not filed her return on time, she had provided documentary evidence explaining the source of cash deposits. The Tribunal accepted certain sources such as jewel loan, cash withdrawals, salary, rental income, and opening cash balance, partially explaining the cash deposit.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had not filed their return of income. While the CIT(A) allowed VAT expenditure, the Tribunal found it appropriate to estimate the income based on turnover, sales commission, and handling charges, considering the business activities undertaken.
The Tribunal condoned a 10-day delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the assessee's explanation of having a substantial cash balance from retirement and money lending, the Tribunal found it prudent to allow an estimated amount of Rs. 7.50 lakhs as explained source of deposit.
The Tribunal held that the purchase of the property occurred in AY 2015-16, not AY 2016-17, making the reassessment for AY 2016-17 void. Furthermore, it was established that M/s.GSPL provided the funds for the purchase, with a Board resolution authorizing the assessee to act on behalf of the company. Therefore, the addition under Section 69 was not justified.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, accepting the source for a significant portion of the cash deposits from previous bank withdrawals. The remaining deposits were also accepted as sourced from sales proceeds of proprietorship concerns and capital withdrawals from partnership firms.
The Tribunal held that the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have decided the legal issues raised by the assessee regarding the jurisdiction of the AO to reopen the assessment, before restoring the case to the AO for fresh assessment. Failure to do so would lead to an abuse of process. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the appeal was restored to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) for deciding the legal issues.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed in pursuance to the revision order under section 263 of the Act had no legal sanctity as the revision order itself was quashed by the ITAT. Therefore, the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee were dismissed.