Loading ITAT cases…
430 orders · Page 7 of 9
The Tribunal held that the assessee bank cannot be treated as an assessee in default for not deducting tax at source. This is because the bank acted in compliance with the subsisting judicial orders of the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and restored the matter to his file, providing the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its claim with the submitted documents.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and restored the matter to his file, providing the assessee one more opportunity to substantiate its claim with the submitted documents.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the applications without properly appreciating the facts and materials. The requirement to provide pre-01.04.2021 registration was impossible for a trust formed in December 2022.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the applications without properly appreciating the facts and materials. The requirement to produce a pre-01.04.2021 registration was impossible as the trust was formed in December 2022.
The Tribunal held that the cancellation of registration was based solely on findings that were subsequently overturned by the Tribunal itself in quantum proceedings. Since the foundational basis for cancellation no longer existed, the order of cancellation could not be sustained.
The Tribunal held that Form 26AS is not conclusive evidence of the nature of receipt and that the assessee's reconciliation statement supported by invoices sufficiently demonstrated that the difference represented trade discounts, not commission income.
The Tribunal held that disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(ii) was not warranted as the assessee's own funds exceeded its investments, following established legal precedents. The disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) was confirmed as per a Special Bench decision.
The Tribunal held that both the assessment orders and the CIT(A) orders were ex parte, and the merits of the case were not examined. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause and held that the assessee is entitled to the enhanced exemption limit of Rs. 25,00,000 for leave encashment, as per a subsequent notification.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's legal issue regarding the final assessment order being barred by limitation is devoid of merit. The assessee had chosen to file objections with the DRP and informed the AO accordingly on 25.10.2023. By choosing this route, the assessee cannot now argue that the AO failed to pass the final assessment order as envisaged under Section 144C(4). The Tribunal found that the DRP rightly refused to condone the delay in filing objections. Following the decision in Inno Estates Pvt Ltd. V. DRP-2, the Tribunal held that the impugned order, though stated to be under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13), is not an order pursuant to a DRP direction but an assessment order simpliciter under Section 143(3). Therefore, an appeal would lie before the CIT(A). The Tribunal held the instant appeal before it as not maintainable. However, for the interest of justice, the assessee was granted liberty to file an appeal before the CIT(A) within four weeks, and the CIT(A) was directed not to raise the question of limitation and to decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal held that the addition made by the AO emanated from the issue for which the assessment was reopened. However, since a legal ground raised before the CIT(A) was not adjudicated, the matter was restored to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the condonation of delay in filing the return of income under Section 119(2)(b) does not condone the separate default of not furnishing the audit report within the prescribed time. The subsequent filing of the audit report after the penalty proceedings were initiated, following the condonation order, was not considered a reasonable cause for the initial default.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of substantial justice. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have provided a more effective opportunity to the assessee to furnish documents and explain their case, adhering to principles of natural justice. The rejection was based solely on non-compliance, without examining the merits.
The Tribunal held that the rejection was ex parte without examining the merits of the claim. In the interest of justice, the assessee should be granted one more opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal held that both the assessment orders and the CIT(A) orders were ex parte, and the merits of the case were not examined. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission that the omission to file documents was due to technical glitches and granted one more opportunity. The assessment was set aside and restored to the AO for de novo assessment after the assessee files the required documents.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's lack of awareness of the assessment proceedings. The Tribunal restored the assessment to the AO for de novo assessment, subject to a cost deposit.
The Tribunal held that both the assessment orders and the CIT(A) orders were ex parte, and the merits of the case were not examined. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that both the assessment orders and the CIT(A) orders were ex parte, and the merits of the case were not examined. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that both the assessment orders and the CIT(A) orders were ex parte, and the merits of the case were not examined. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to the legal heir's lack of familiarity with tax matters and communication gaps. The Tribunal remitted the appeals back to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present necessary details.
The Tribunal held that the AO's 'satisfaction note' to invoke jurisdiction under Section 153C was insufficient as it did not establish a co-relation between the seized material and the assessment year in question. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO was bad in law.
The Tribunal held that the AO was legally bound to issue a notice under Section 153C before framing the assessment for AY 2019-20. The non-issuance of this notice vitiated the assessment proceedings, rendering the order void ab initio.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate a reasonable cause for the significant delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed on the grounds of delay.
The ITAT held that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid because the approval was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) instead of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (PCCIT), as required for reopening beyond three years. Consequently, the assessment stemming from this invalid notice was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate a reasonable cause for the significant delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed on the grounds of delay.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to substantiate a reasonable cause for the significant delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed on the grounds of delay.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without hearing the assessee. The assessee claimed non-receipt of notices and requested another opportunity.
The Tribunal noted a significant delay in filing the appeal. Due to the lack of response from the assessee at all stages, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the lower authorities' orders.
The Tribunal noted a significant delay in filing the appeal. Due to the lack of response from the assessee at all stages, the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the lower authorities' orders.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, acknowledging the assessee's lack of familiarity with tax matters and communication gaps. The Tribunal remitted the appeal back to the AO to provide the assessee with another opportunity to present their case properly.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's claim of lack of awareness and inadequate professional support, granted another opportunity for proper representation. The appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) as the assessee failed to prosecute the appeal by not appearing or providing any supporting material. The grounds raised by the assessee were found to be unsupported.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the benefit under Section 10(10B) and that the lower appellate authority erred in dismissing the appeal solely on grounds of limitation. The Tribunal emphasized the department's duty to guide taxpayers and not take advantage of their ignorance.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) in the interest of substantial justice. The impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the compensation received under the BSNL VRS 2019 scheme was in substance retrenchment compensation and thus eligible for full exemption under Section 10(10B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow the claim.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the orders of the lower authorities. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee one final opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte orders and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee a final opportunity to present evidence. This was subject to a cost deposit.
The Tribunal held that while some disallowance is justified due to lack of vouchers, the 25% sustained by the CIT(A) was excessive. The disallowance was restricted to 10% of the claimed expenditure.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have provided a more effective opportunity to the assessee before rejecting the applications. The rejection was based solely on non-compliance, without examining the merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) should have provided a more effective opportunity to the assessee before rejecting the applications. The rejection was based solely on non-compliance, without examining the merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the AO for de-novo assessment. The assessee was directed to cooperate and participate in the proceedings, and the AO was instructed to provide a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal observed that both the AO and CIT(A) orders were not on merits. Considering the assessee's circumstances, the Tribunal decided to grant one last opportunity to represent the case de-novo before the AO.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of Section 10(10B) of the Act. It was observed that the First Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the appeal, and the Assessing Officer was directed to allow the claim.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, finding that the additions made by the AO were based on uncorroborated notes, selective use of seized material, and flawed computations. The assessee's reconciliation and voluntary offers were found to be credible.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the Managing Director's imprisonment. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits along with the quantum appeal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the death of a partner and the illness of another, citing reasons of natural justice. The appeal was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee's rural background and lack of awareness of procedures. The matter was restored to the AO for de novo adjudication.