Loading ITAT cases…
163 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal, as the reasons provided by the assessee were uncontroverted. Given the ex-parte nature of the assessment order, the matter was remanded for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal, as the reasons provided by the assessee were uncontroverted. Given the ex-parte nature of the assessment order, the matter was remanded for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal, as the reasons provided by the assessee were uncontroverted. Given the ex-parte nature of the assessment order, the matter was remanded for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal, as the reasons provided by the assessee were uncontroverted. Given the ex-parte nature of the assessment order, the matter was remanded for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal, as the reasons provided by the assessee were uncontroverted. Given the ex-parte nature of the assessment order, the matter was remanded for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay as the assessee's averments in the affidavit remained uncontroverted. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have condoned the delay as the assessee's averments in the affidavit remained uncontroverted. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal, while deprecating the assessee's non-compliance, restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in the interest of justice. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits, even if dismissed for non-prosecution, and must provide a speaking order after affording a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 69,56,295/- in the assessee's hands was unsustainable as the policy belonged to his son. The assessee's own contribution was explained, and the investment of another identifiable person cannot be taxed in the assessee's hands.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's submissions and evidence, including TDS credit and sale instances. The Tribunal also noted that the reference to the DVO was not completed within the stipulated time.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to respond to notices from lower authorities due to closure of operations. Considering the peculiar circumstances, the Tribunal decided to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remitted the appeal back to the AO. The AO was directed to call for necessary details and decide the issue in accordance with law, giving the assessee an opportunity to substantiate their claim.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, considering the assessee's limited familiarity with electronic proceedings and the tax consultant's alleged mishandling, decided to give one more opportunity. The appeal was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 for AY 2015-16 on April 22, 2022, was barred by limitation. This decision was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Rajeev Bansal and other precedents concerning the time limits for issuing such notices.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the AO. The AO was directed to call for necessary details and decide the issue afresh after the assessee provides the required information.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after calling for necessary details. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was levied on the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not record specific findings on the documents submitted by the assessee and that the issue of cash deposits needed factual examination. Therefore, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal, while deprecating the assessee's nonchalant attitude, decided to grant one more opportunity in the interest of justice. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for a proper delay condonation petition with supporting evidence.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one final opportunity to represent its case. The assessee was directed to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the FAA, finding the assessee's reasons reasonable. The matter was remitted back to the FAA to adjudicate the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's reasons reasonable and applying a liberal approach to advance substantial justice. The matter was remitted back to the FAA for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid because the approval for reassessment beyond three years was obtained from the incorrect authority (PCIT instead of PCCIT). Consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated and completed based on this invalid notice were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's application for renewal of approval under Section 80G was rejected by the Ld. CIT(E). The appeal is filed against this rejection.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year, requiring approval from the Principal Chief Commissioner (PCCIT) as per Section 151(ii). Since approval was obtained only from the Principal Commissioner (PCIT) as per Section 151(i), the notice was invalid.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's submission of a management change leading to non-appearance, decided to grant one more opportunity. The appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after calling for necessary details.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and remitted the appeal back to the AO for fresh adjudication after calling for necessary details. A cost of Rs. 10,000 was levied on the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back to the AO with a direction to call for necessary details and decide the issue afresh. A cost of Rs. 15,000 was levied on the assessee.
The Tribunal, while deprecating the assessee's non-compliance, granted a last opportunity to present the case before the AO. This was subject to a cost of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's lack of response but, in the interest of justice and fair play, decided to restore the matter to the First Appellate Authority. The assessee was granted one last opportunity to represent their case, with a directive to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal found that the assessee received the High Court's order on 07.10.2024 and filed the appeal before the FAA on 19.10.2024, which was within the 30-day period granted by the High Court. Therefore, there was no delay.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the audit report was due to bonafide reasons (COVID-19 pandemic) and the report was available to the AO before assessment completion. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271D was not warranted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it and remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) to consider the delay condonation afresh and decide the merits. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was levied on the assessee.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that lower authorities did not provide a proper opportunity to be heard. The issue of deduction under Section 80P requires factual verification.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with an opportunity to substantiate their claim.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's reliance on a tax practitioner who failed to monitor proceedings and a wrong email address being used for notices. The Tribunal remitted the appeal back to the AO for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to provide necessary details.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause for the belated filing. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to ex-parte proceedings caused by incorrect email service.
The Tribunal restored the case to the AO to await the decision on the condonation petition. If the delay is condoned, the AO is directed to consider the Section 80P deduction claim on merits.
The tribunal held that the FAA has no jurisdiction to dismiss an appeal for non-compliance without adjudicating on merits. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication to provide the assessee an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the decision on the condonation petition for the delayed return has a direct bearing on the claim of deduction under Section 80P. Therefore, the case was restored to the AO to await the decision on the condonation application.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's plea of not being aware of the proceedings due to counsel's lack of support, decided to grant one more opportunity. The appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO was unjustified in denying the Section 54 deduction and making additions under Section 69A. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanation for the cash deposits to be plausible and directed the deletion of the additions.
The Tribunal held that the PCIT's identified errors were based on an incorrect understanding of facts. The assessee's write-off was in line with its accounting policy and not a mere provision.
The Tribunal held that corpus donations for specific purposes, like construction, should not be included when calculating the aggregate annual receipts for the purpose of Section 10(23C)(iiiad). Therefore, the assessee's receipts were below the prescribed limit, making it eligible for exemption.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal was due to a bona fide procedural mistake based on professional advice, constituting a sufficient cause. Therefore, the delay should be condoned.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) which had dismissed the assessee's appeal. The dismissal was based on a previous appeal against the same assessment year having already been disposed of, rendering the current appeal infructuous.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits, even if ex-parte, and cannot dismiss them solely for non-prosecution. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of penalty proceedings was not in accordance with law due to the absence of satisfaction during the assessment and the inordinate, unexplained delay. The penalty order was found to be barred by limitation under Section 275(1)(c).
The Tribunal remitted the issue of interest disallowance back to the AO for verification of the assessee's claim of double disallowance. For sales promotion expenses, the Tribunal also remitted the issue to the AO to allow the assessee to submit documentary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the addition for sundry debtors and creditors was unsustainable as the AO did not properly examine transactions of the relevant year and invoked Section 69 without satisfying its prerequisites. The Tribunal also directed the AO to allow the cost of acquisition for gold.