Loading ITAT cases…
160 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court judgment in PCIT v. Peroorkada Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., held that the interest income earned by the appellant society from other co-operative banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The AO is directed to allow this claim, thereby clarifying that the assessee is eligible for the Section 80P deduction.
The Tribunal condoned the 377-day delay in filing the appeal. It remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, directing the appellant to provide further evidence to establish its status as a primary agricultural credit society, especially in light of an old RBI certificate which the CIT(A) deemed insufficient.
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to re-examine the claim for cost of improvement by examining the contractor on oath and considering additional evidence. Similarly, the AO must also re-evaluate the disallowance of brokerage expenses based on new evidence provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal, relying on a Privy Council ruling, held that if an adjustment is made to the valuation of closing stock, a corresponding adjustment must also be made to the opening stock to correctly ascertain the true profit. The matter was remitted back to the AO with a direction to value the closing stock on the same basis as the opening stock.
The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh adjudication. This decision was made because the appellant's application for condonation of delay in renewing the exemption registration is currently pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption).
The Tribunal ruled that the CPC was not justified in invoking Section 11(3) for disallowance of accumulated funds during processing under Section 143(1), as such an adjustment falls outside the ambit and scope of Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. The CPC was directed to amend the intimation.
The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings under Section 271B for assessment years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 were barred by limitation, having been initiated after a lapse of ten years. For assessment years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022, the Tribunal found that the special audit conducted under Section 142(2A) served the same objective as the Section 44AB audit, and the delay was a reasonable cause due to the State Co-operative Department's audit. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the penalty levied under Section 271B for all assessment years.
The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings under Section 271B for assessment years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 were barred by limitation, having been initiated after a lapse of ten years. For assessment years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022, the Tribunal found that the special audit conducted under Section 142(2A) served the same objective as the Section 44AB audit, and the delay was a reasonable cause due to the State Co-operative Department's audit. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the penalty levied under Section 271B for all assessment years.
The Tribunal held that penalty proceedings under Section 271B for assessment years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 were barred by limitation, having been initiated after a lapse of ten years. For assessment years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022, the Tribunal found that the special audit conducted under Section 142(2A) served the same objective as the Section 44AB audit, and the delay was a reasonable cause due to the State Co-operative Department's audit. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the AO to delete the penalty levied under Section 271B for all assessment years.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving its status as a primary agricultural credit co-operative society. To meet the ends of justice and following the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication with a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is legally obligated to dispose of an appeal on its merits, even when it is dismissed ex-parte, as mandated by Section 250(6). Citing precedent, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) with directions to dispose of the appeal de novo on merits after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice issued on 18.04.2022 for AY 2015-16 was ab initio void, being barred by limitation as per the First Proviso to Section 149(1) of the Income-tax Act. Since the notice was issued beyond three years from the end of the relevant financial year and there was no allegation of failure to disclose material facts, the notice was deemed invalid, and the subsequent assessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal observed that the condition of filing the audit report in Form 10BB is a condition precedent for claiming exemption under Section 11. Belated submission amounts to an incorrect claim as defined under the Explanation to Section 143(1). Despite not finding merit in the specific ground of appeal, the Tribunal ultimately partly allowed the appeal.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide evidence for the claimed cost of improvement. Therefore, the claim could not be allowed, and the Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, finding no reason to interfere. The appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that no disallowance of interest under Section 14A was warranted as the investments yielding exempt income were made from the company's own funds. However, the disallowance of contribution to the employees' welfare fund was upheld.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) as a last opportunity, emphasizing the interest of justice and equity. The assessee was directed to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) as a last opportunity, emphasizing the interest of justice and equity. The assessee was directed to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) as a last opportunity, emphasizing the interest of justice and equity. The assessee was directed to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) as a last opportunity, emphasizing the interest of justice and equity. The assessee was directed to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) as a last opportunity, emphasizing the interest of justice and equity. The assessee was directed to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, noting that the Senior Departmental Representative had no objection. The Tribunal granted the assessee liberty to revive the appeal if the declaration filed under the VSVS 2024 scheme is rejected for any reason.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the file of the CIT(A) as a last opportunity, emphasizing the interest of justice and equity. The assessee was directed to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal condoned a 66-day delay in filing the appeal. Relying on the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in Sahyadri Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. and a co-ordinate bench decision, the Tribunal held that the interest income from surplus funds invested by the co-operative society is eligible for deduction, thereby allowing the appeal.
The Tribunal observed that jurisdictional High Courts have held the levy of late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to 01.06.2015 to be illegal. Applying the principle that substantive justice should prevail over technicalities, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and remanded the case back for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee's bonafide belief was evident from the fact that she declared 'Nil' income in the return filed in response to the notice under Section 148. Considering that the assessee had no taxable income, the Tribunal held that no penalty was leviable. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had furnished documentary evidence, including confirmations and bank statements from donors, but the AO had discarded these without conducting any further enquiries. Citing judicial precedent, the Tribunal ruled that an assessee should not suffer due to the AO's inaction in verifying the provided evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal found no ground for the addition made by the AO.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the appeal. The dismissal was due to a delay in filing the appeal, as the assessee's counsel could not explain the delay, and no application for condonation of delay was filed, indicating gross negligence.
The Tribunal observed that jurisdictional High Courts have held the levy of late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to 01.06.2015 to be illegal. Applying the principle that substantive justice should prevail over technicalities, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and remanded the case back for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal ruled that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271 was vague as it did not specify the exact limb of the charge (concealment or inaccurate particulars). Citing judicial precedents from High Courts and the Apex Court, the Tribunal held that such a vague notice renders the penalty invalid.
The Tribunal observed that jurisdictional High Courts have held the levy of late fees under Section 234E for periods prior to 01.06.2015 to be illegal. Applying the principle that substantive justice should prevail over technicalities, the Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and remanded the case back for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding a reasonable cause. Noting that the CIT(A)'s order was silent on whether a hearing notice was served, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, directing that the assessee be given a meaningful opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte due to the assessee's non-response. In the interest of natural justice and equity, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing a last opportunity to the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte due to the assessee's non-response. In the interest of natural justice and equity, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing a last opportunity to the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte due to the assessee's non-response. In the interest of natural justice and equity, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing a last opportunity to the assessee to cooperate.
The ITAT found sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and condoned it, noting that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the condonation petition. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte due to the assessee's non-response. In the interest of natural justice and equity, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing a last opportunity to the assessee to cooperate.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) observed that the assessee had placed on record a certificate from the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, confirming its registration as a Primary Agricultural Credit Society. Since this certificate was not presented before the CIT(A), the Tribunal, in the interest of justice and equity, restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. The AO is directed to reconsider the claim of deduction under Section 80P of the Act in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mavilayi Service Co-op. Bank Ltd.
The Tribunal condoned the 26-day delay in filing the present appeal. Noting that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) had already condoned the delay in filing Form 10B for AY 2019-20, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to freshly examine the claim of exemption under Section 11 of the Act.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte due to the assessee's non-response. In the interest of natural justice and equity, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing a last opportunity to the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s orders were ex-parte due to the assessee's non-response. In the interest of natural justice and equity, the appeals were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing a last opportunity to the assessee to cooperate.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) found that the CIT(A)/NFAC's order was passed without adjudicating the issues on merit and in violation of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, which requires a speaking order with reasons. Considering the principles of natural justice and the assessee's request, the ITAT remitted all issues back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication, directing the assessee to provide all necessary documents and avoid adjournments.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without adjudicating the merits, which is contrary to Section 250(6) of the Act. The assessee claimed that notices were sent to an incorrect/inactive email ID, leading to a lack of awareness about the new faceless e-proceedings. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remitted the entire issues back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, ruling that the Assessing Officer cannot deny the benefit of accumulation under Section 11(2) merely because the purpose specified in Form 10 is general, as long as it aligns with the charitable objects stated in the trust deed. It clarified that plurality of purposes is permissible and the income was accumulated to achieve the trust's objects, as supported by judicial pronouncements.
The ITAT observed a discrepancy in the CIT(A)'s order regarding the applicable exemption sections and the assessee's claim of a clerical error. Considering the AO's u/s 144 order was passed without proper opportunity of being heard, the ITAT remitted the entire issue back to the AO for fresh consideration, directing the assessee to provide all necessary documents and allowing for a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The tribunal granted permission for the assessee to withdraw the appeal, with the provision that the appeal could be revived or reinstated if the DTVSV application is rejected. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal, granting liberty to revive it if the DTVSV application is subsequently rejected. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.
The ITAT condoned the 202-day delay in filing the appeal, accepting the assessee's reasons (medical grounds and non-receipt of notices due to an incorrect email ID) as bonafide, thereby prioritizing substantial justice. The Tribunal found that the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity to present her case before the AO and that the CIT(A) had failed to consider the appeal on merits. Consequently, the ITAT remitted the entire matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, directing that the assessee be granted a fair hearing and submit all necessary documents.
The Tribunal condoned a 3-day delay in filing the appeal. It observed that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the assessee's specific contention that the investments were made in prior years. As no evidence was placed before the Tribunal to prove the earlier year investments, the case was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after allowing the assessee to furnish necessary evidence.
The Tribunal acknowledged the PCCIT's order condoning the delay in filing the ITR under Section 119(2)(b). Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO with a directive to implement the PCCIT's order and allow the Section 80P deduction of Rs. 91,23,250/- after due verification, in accordance with the law.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not afforded adequate opportunity of being heard by the lower authorities. Consequently, the entire matter in dispute is remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration in accordance with the law. The assessee is directed to cooperate by submitting all necessary documents and information.