Loading ITAT cases…
381 orders · Page 3 of 8
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without deciding the grounds of appeal on merits, violating Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the order was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) passed an ex-parte order without considering the merits of the appeal, violating natural justice. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee did not get a proper opportunity before the AO.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's health issues and age. While noting the assessee's failure to participate in lower proceedings, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that since the delay in filing the return was condoned by the CCIT under Section 119(2)(b), the embargo under Section 80AC would no longer apply. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to have its claim for deduction under Section 80P examined on merits.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments in another cooperative society is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d). The CIT(A) erred in disallowing this deduction, and the penalty under Section 270A was also cancelled as it was consequential to the disallowed deduction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remitted back to the AO for de novo assessment after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and set aside the CIT(A)'s order. The matter was remitted back to the AO for de novo assessment and to decide the penalty.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments in another cooperative society is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d). The CIT(A) erred in disallowing this deduction, and the penalty under Section 270A was also cancelled as it was consequential to the disallowed deduction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment. A cost of Rs. 10,000 was levied on the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the assessee's explanation regarding incorrect email communication. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on grounds of delay without properly considering the assessee's explanation. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment order, which formed the basis for the penalty, was set aside and restored for fresh adjudication, the consequential penalty cannot be sustained independently. The penalty issue requires fresh examination based on the outcome of the assessment.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erred in dismissing the appeals ex-parte without providing a proper opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from investments in another cooperative society is deductible under Section 80P(2)(d). The CIT(A) erred in disallowing this deduction, and the penalty under Section 270A was also cancelled as it was consequential to the disallowed deduction.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without deciding the grounds of appeal on merits. For ends of justice, the order was set aside and the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, is not sustainable as the machinery provision for computation was inserted only from that date. The CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals on limitation was also set aside.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, is not sustainable as the machinery provision for computation was inserted only from that date. The CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals on limitation was also set aside.
The Tribunal held that without rejecting the books of account, the AO cannot make arbitrary disallowances. It also found that the assessee had furnished declarations for freight expenses as per Section 194C(6).
The Tribunal held that while the PCIT's revision was justified for CSR expenditure and interest on delayed TDS due to concessions from the assessee, it was not sustainable for prior period expenditure. This was because the Assessing Officer, in subsequent proceedings, had examined and accepted the assessee's claim for prior period expenditure.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made solely based on concessions without independent corroborative evidence. The Tribunal also noted that the AO did not properly examine the cash expenditure exceeding the threshold limit.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without properly considering the reasons for the delay. The averments in the condonation petition were uncontroverted, and thus the delay should have been condoned.
The Tribunal held that the AO mechanically applied Rule 11UA by not excluding unrealizable assets from the valuation. It further held that the fair market value should be based on the NCLT-supervised auction price of Rs. 3.59 per share, as it reflects the commercial reality of the distressed sale.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without properly considering the reasons for the delay. The averments in the condonation petition were uncontroverted, and thus the delay should have been condoned.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, is not sustainable as the machinery provision for computation was inserted only from that date. The CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals on limitation was also set aside.
The Tribunal held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to June 1, 2015, is not sustainable as the machinery provision for computation was inserted only from that date. The CIT(A)'s dismissal of appeals on limitation was also set aside.
The Tribunal held that cash deposits recorded in the books of account and forming part of business receipts cannot be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A, especially when the Assessing Officer has accepted and estimated business income on such turnover. The Tribunal also noted that the demonetization itself does not render business receipts non-genuine.
The Tribunal held that while the AO was justified in doubting unverifiable expenditure, disallowing the entire amount was excessive. It also found merit in deleting the addition for a small cash deposit, considering the substantial cash availability from disclosed withdrawals.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without properly considering the assessee's explanation for the delay. The averments in the affidavit for condonation of delay remained uncontroverted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits, even if dismissed for non-prosecution, and cannot dismiss them solely on that ground. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the delay of 22 minutes in uploading Form-10IC was due to technical glitches and no prejudice was caused to the department. Therefore, the benefit of Section 115BAA should have been granted.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) is duty-bound to dispose of an appeal on merits, even if ex-parte, and cannot dismiss it solely for non-prosecution. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo disposal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have provided an opportunity to the assessee to rectify the defects in the condonation petition before dismissing the appeal. Principles of natural justice require such an opportunity.
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 decision.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal, as the averments in the affidavit remained uncontroverted. The appeal was therefore admitted for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's explanation of ignorance regarding exemption provisions to be a reasonable cause. It held that the ex-gratia compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to dispose of appeals on merits, even if ex parte, and cannot dismiss them solely for non-prosecution. The matter was remanded for de novo disposal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's explanation of ignorance regarding exemption provisions to be a reasonable cause. It held that the ex-gratia compensation received under the BSNL VRS-2019 scheme is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Act.
The Tribunal held that the applicability of Section 2(15) is a matter for assessment proceedings, not for renewal of registration. The Tribunal found that the assessee's activities of imparting specialized knowledge through seminars and workshops could be considered 'education'.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine without properly considering the condonation of delay petition. The averments in the affidavit regarding the delay remained uncontroverted, and thus the delay should have been condoned.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding the assessee's explanation of ignorance regarding the correct legal position to be a reasonable cause. It held that the BSNL VRS-2019 compensation is eligible for exemption under Section 10(10B).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on grounds of delay without properly considering the explanation offered by the assessee. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine due to delay without properly considering the medical condition of the partner as a reasonable cause. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.
The ITAT, while deprecating the assessee's non-compliance, granted a last opportunity to present the case before the AO. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000 in each case to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to bonafide reasons. It held that the levy of late fees under Section 234E for belated filing of TDS returns prior to June 1, 2015, while processing under Section 200A, is invalid.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in refusing to condone the delay without properly considering the assessee's explanation. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration of the delay condonation petition.
The ITAT, while deprecating the assessee's non-compliance, granted a last opportunity to present the case before the AO. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000 in each case to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in refusing to condone the delay without properly considering the assessee's explanation. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to consider the explanation offered by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was not justified in refusing to condone the delay without properly considering the assessee's explanation. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration of the delay condonation petition.
The ITAT, while deprecating the assessee's non-compliance, granted a last opportunity to present the case before the AO. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000 in each case to the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority.