Loading ITAT cases…
408 orders · Page 2 of 9
The Tribunal held that the AO's action of confirming the CPC adjustment after the CIT(A) had allowed the appeal was untenable. The Tribunal quashed the AO's order and directed a fresh order applying the CIT(A)'s decision to the CPC adjustment as well.
The Tribunal held that the DRP's direction to delete the transfer pricing adjustment for royalty and business support services was correct. The payments were made under agreements consistent with previous years, and the services were integral to the assessee's operations.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A), considering the assessee's cooperative behavior during assessment proceedings and the need for substantive justice. The matters were restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, noting the assessee's rural location and lack of in-house tax expertise. It was held that the assessee was prevented from effectively representing its case due to notices being sent electronically when postal communication was opted for.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 544 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) based on the assessee's affidavit, passport details, and wife's medical records. The Tribunal also admitted additional evidence and restored the issues to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that filing Form 10CCB is directory, not mandatory, and can be filed before assessment completion. The AO erred in denying the deduction as the assessee filed the return within the due date and the form was submitted before CPC.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act was barred by limitation. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings initiated based on this invalid notice were quashed.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits, even if dismissed ex-parte for non-prosecution. Dismissing an appeal solely for non-prosecution without considering the merits is contrary to legal provisions.
The tribunal held that non-furnishing of recorded reasons for reopening the assessment, despite the assessee's request, is fatal to the reassessment proceedings. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were declared bad in law.
The Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present evidence, subject to payment of costs.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was admitted for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present evidence, subject to payment of costs.
The Tribunal held that the remand report was vague and lacked proper verification of the lender's financial capacity and source of funds. The CIT(A) deleted the addition without independent findings. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was restored.
The Tribunal held that the remand report was vague and lacked proper verification of the lender's financial capacity and source of funds. The CIT(A) deleted the addition without independent findings. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was restored.
The Tribunal restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present evidence, subject to payment of costs.
The Tribunal held that opening balances of sundry creditors cannot be assessed as unexplained cash credits in the current year if they were accepted in earlier scrutiny assessments. It also held that trade advances from numerous small vendors are not unexplained credits and that statutory additional depreciation cannot be denied for not being claimed in the original return.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had a bona fide belief that Section 44AB was not applicable due to the consistent acceptance of interest income under 'Income from Other Sources' by the Department in prior and subsequent years. This constituted a reasonable cause under Section 273B.
The tribunal condoned the delay, stating that the reasons provided by the assessee, including lack of knowledge, illness of the secretary, and changes in management, constituted a sufficient cause. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The ITAT condoned a 10-day delay in filing its own appeal, finding it to be for bonafide reasons. However, it upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to refuse condonation of the 645-day delay before the CIT(A), as there was no explanation for a significant portion of that delay.
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 notices were not properly served on the appellant as service through the ITBA Portal is not a valid method. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh disposal.
The Tribunal held that filing an appeal before the CIT(A) as a precautionary measure while a rectification petition was pending before the CPC did not constitute a reasonable cause for the delay. Therefore, the CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay.
The Tribunal held that adding the insurance compensation separately, after it was already adjusted against the fire loss in the Profit & Loss account, resulted in double taxation. The Tribunal also noted the inconsistent basis for taxation by the AO and the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the denial of deduction under Section 80P was justified as the return of income was not filed within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1), relying on the provisions of Section 80AC. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.
The tribunal condoned the delay, stating that the reasons provided by the assessee, including lack of knowledge, illness of the secretary, and changes in management, constituted a sufficient cause. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The tribunal condoned the delay, stating that the reasons provided by the assessee, including lack of knowledge, illness of the secretary, and changes in management, constituted a sufficient cause. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that adding the insurance compensation separately, after it was already adjusted against the fire loss in the Profit & Loss account, resulted in double taxation. The Tribunal also noted the inconsistent basis for taxation by the AO and the CIT(A).
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before them and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh assessment. The AO was directed to provide a proper opportunity of being heard and to consider the deduction under Section 80P as per jurisdictional High Court rulings.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits, even if ex-parte, and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that no affidavit justifying the delay was filed by the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee did not have justified grounds for the delay in filing the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is duty-bound to dispose of an appeal on merits, even if dismissed ex-parte for non-prosecution. Dismissing an appeal solely for non-prosecution without considering the merits is contrary to the law.
The CIT(A) set aside the assessment order to the Assessing Officer without adjudicating the grounds challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to decide these validity grounds first.
The tribunal condoned the delay, stating that the reasons provided by the assessee, including lack of knowledge, illness of the secretary, and changes in management, constituted a sufficient cause. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, noting the assessee's non-appearance before lower authorities was due to bona fide reasons. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits, even if ex-parte, and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The tribunal condoned the delay, stating that the reasons provided by the assessee, including lack of knowledge, illness of the secretary, and changes in management, constituted a sufficient cause. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that service of notice through the ITBA Portal is not a valid method of service as per Section 282(1) of the Income Tax Act and Rule 127(1) of the Income Tax Rules. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for de novo disposal.
The tribunal condoned the delay, stating that the reasons provided by the assessee, including lack of knowledge, illness of the secretary, and changes in management, constituted a sufficient cause. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, noting that the matter was not adjudicated on merits. The Tribunal restored the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment after imposing a cost on the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de-novo assessment. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide a proper opportunity of being heard and to follow the jurisdictional High Court's decision on Section 80P.
The Tribunal held that treating the cash deposits as unexplained would lead to double addition, as the sales and corresponding purchases were accepted by the Revenue. The explanation of the assessee for the cash deposits was accepted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before it, considering the substantial justice. It also found sufficient cause for the delay in filing the original appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine due to a delay of 284 days without adjudicating on merits. The Tribunal found a delay of 96 days in the present appeal and noted the assessee's explanation for the delay.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The reason for withdrawal was that a duplicate appeal had been filed and the original appeal had already been processed.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment was invalid as the AO lacked tangible material beyond the original assessment records. The reopening was based on a review of existing information rather than new material, failing to meet the requirements of Section 147.
The Tribunal held that the denial of deduction under Section 80P solely due to a delay in filing the return, when the delay was due to genuine reasons like statutory audit completion and COVID-19 disruptions, is a procedural aspect against substantive entitlement. The Tribunal emphasized the benevolent object of Section 80P and the CBDT circulars aimed at mitigating genuine hardship for cooperative societies.
The Tribunal held that ₹12,50,000/- from cash sales was explained as it was already part of the disclosed income and books were not rejected. The issue of ₹12,50,000/- from partner capital introduction was remanded for verification of additional evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the cash deposits from cash withdrawals, cash gifts from brothers, and income from real estate business. The AO's addition was based on irrelevant considerations.
The Tribunal held that filing Form 10-IE for the immediately preceding year is sufficient to claim the benefit of Section 115BAC for subsequent years. A fresh filing is not required if the option was validly exercised previously.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without condoning the delay, especially considering the genuine hardship faced by cooperative societies and the benevolent intent of CBDT circulars. The substantive entitlement to deduction under Section 80P should not be denied due to procedural delays.