Loading ITAT cases…
814 orders · Page 10 of 17
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Exemptions)'s order and restored the matter for fresh consideration. The CIT(Exemptions) was directed to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard and pass a speaking order.
The Tribunal held that the absence of an explicit irrevocability clause cannot be the sole ground for rejecting registration, following the Bombay High Court's decision. The CIT(Exemption) must also examine other aspects like the genuineness of activities and charitable objects.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and remitted the matter back to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision on merits. The CIT(E) is to consider all material on record and any further evidence filed by the assessee.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the reasons to be genuine. It further directed the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and present evidence.
The Tribunal held that the absence of an explicit dissolution clause in the trust deed cannot be the sole ground for rejecting registration under Section 12A. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to re-examine the application, considering other aspects like the genuineness of activities and charitable objects.
The Tribunal held that the absence of an explicit dissolution clause in the trust deed cannot be the sole ground for rejecting registration under Section 12A. The CIT(Exemption) must also examine other aspects like the genuineness of activities and charitable objects.
The Tribunal held that the absence of an explicit irrevocability clause cannot be the sole ground for rejecting registration under Section 12AB. The CIT(Exemptions) was directed to reconsider the application, but was permitted to examine other aspects like the genuineness of activities and charitable objects.
The Tribunal found that the rejection was based on technical lapses rather than a substantive evaluation of the charitable activities. In the interest of justice, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to be heard on merit.
The Tribunal held that the order passed by the learned CIT(Exemption) was ex-parte and non-speaking. It was observed that in such circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice to restore the matter to the learned CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(Exemption). The Tribunal directed the CIT(Exemption) to decide the matter afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter, pass a speaking order in accordance with law. The ratio decidendi is that an ex-parte and non-speaking order rejecting an application for registration under Section 12A is unsustainable and warrants a remand for proper adjudication with due process. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the order passed by the learned CIT(Exemptions) was ex-parte and non-speaking. In the interest of justice, it was deemed appropriate to restore the matter to the learned CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the CIT(Exemptions) to decide the matter afresh after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and thereafter passing a speaking order in accordance with law. The appeal of the assessee was allowed for statistical purposes. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned.
The Tribunal held that the absence of an explicit irrevocability clause in the trust deed cannot be the sole ground for rejecting the application for registration under Section 12A. Citing the Bombay High Court's decision in The Chamber of Tax Consultants Vs. CIT(Exemption) & Ors., the Tribunal noted that a public charitable trust is considered irrevocable by operation of law unless expressly stated otherwise. The CIT(Exemptions) had not examined other crucial aspects such as the genuineness of the activities, the charitable objects, and the commencement of activities. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Exemptions) with a direction that registration should not be denied on the issue of the irrevocability clause. However, the CIT(Exemptions) is permitted to examine other aspects like the genuineness of activities, charitable objects, and commencement of activities. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(Exemptions) for de-novo decision after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions) erred in rejecting the application solely on the ground of the irrevocability clause and the unregistered trust deed. Citing the Bombay High Court's decision in The Chamber of Tax Consultants, the Tribunal noted that a public charitable trust is presumed irrevocable by law unless the deed states otherwise, and the absence of such a clause is not a basis for rejection. However, the Tribunal also observed that the CIT(Exemptions) had not examined other crucial aspects, such as the genuineness of the activities, the charitable objects, and the commencement of activities. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Exemptions) was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemptions) for de-novo decision. The CIT(Exemptions) was directed not to deny registration on the issue of the irrevocability clause but was permitted to examine other aspects like the genuineness of activities, charitable objects, and commencement of activities, after providing the assessee with a sufficient opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the absence of an explicit irrevocability clause in the trust deed cannot be the sole ground for rejecting the assessee's application for registration under Section 12A. The Tribunal relied on the Bombay High Court's judgment in The Chamber of Tax Consultants Vs. CIT(Exemption) & Ors. The reasoning was that a public charitable trust is deemed irrevocable by law unless expressly stated otherwise. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Exemptions) had not examined other crucial aspects such as the genuineness of the trust's activities, its charitable objects, and the commencement of its activities. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Exemptions) was set aside. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) to decide de novo, with a direction not to deny registration solely on the issue of irrevocability, but to examine other aspects after providing the assessee with a sufficient opportunity of being heard. No other issue was expressly left undecided.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's husband, under identical facts and circumstances concerning the same property, had his LTCL claim accepted by the AO. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the assessee's claim for LTCL.
The Tribunal noted that the learned CIT(Exemptions) rejected the application solely on the ground of the absence of an irrevocability clause. Citing the Bombay High Court's decision in The Chamber of Tax Consultants (supra), the Tribunal held that a public charitable trust is deemed irrevocable by operation of law unless expressly provided otherwise in the trust deed. The absence of an explicit irrevocability clause cannot be the sole basis for rejecting registration under Section 12A. However, the Tribunal observed that the CIT(Exemptions) had not examined other crucial aspects such as the genuineness of the trust's activities, its charitable objects, and the commencement of its activities. Therefore, the order of the CIT(Exemptions) was set aside. The CIT(Exemptions) was directed not to deny registration on the issue of the irrevocability clause but was permitted to examine the other aspects. The matter was restored to the file of the CIT(Exemptions) for de-novo decision after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that it would be in the interest of justice to restore the matter to the learned CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration. The reasoning was based on the observation that the CIT(Exemptions) had passed an ex-parte, non-speaking order and had proceeded to decide the case ex-parte despite an adjournment petition being filed by the assessee. The ITAT set aside the impugned order of the CIT(Exemptions) with a direction to decide the matter afresh. This decision mandates that the CIT(Exemptions) must afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and thereafter pass a speaking order in accordance with the law. The issue of whether the application for registration under Section 12A should have been granted or rejected on merits was left undecided by the ITAT, as the matter was remanded.
The Tribunal held that a substantive right of the assessee cannot be defeated merely due to a technical glitch. The Tribunal found the facts to be clear and agreed with the assessee's contention that a procedural mistake should not lead to the denial of registration. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of the learned CIT(Exemption). The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for de-novo adjudication. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity of being heard and to allow the assessee to file the required documents for examination. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principle that substantive rights should not be sacrificed for procedural technicalities, especially when the error is bona fide and the activities are genuine. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that a substantive right of the assessee cannot be defeated merely for a technical glitch. The Tribunal set aside the order of the learned CIT(Exemption) and remanded the matter back to his file for de-novo adjudication. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to allow an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and to consider the required documents to be filed by the assessee. The reasoning was that the procedural mistake was inadvertent and bona fide, and the assessee was otherwise carrying on genuine charitable activities. The ratio decidendi is that technical defects in procedural filings should not lead to the denial of substantive rights, especially when the underlying activities are genuine. The issue of whether the assessee's activities are indeed charitable was not decided upon by the ITAT, as the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that a substantive right of the assessee cannot be defeated merely due to a technical glitch. The Tribunal noted that the facts were clear and that the rejection of the application was based on a technical defect in filing. Following the principle that substantive rights should not be denied due to procedural errors, and in line with precedents from various ITAT benches, the Tribunal set aside the order of the learned CIT(Exemption). The matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for de-novo adjudication. The assessee was to be granted an opportunity of being heard and was required to file the necessary documents before the CIT(Exemption) for examination. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The ITAT held that it would be in the interest of justice to restore the matter to the learned CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration. The Tribunal found that the learned CIT(Exemptions) had passed an ex-parte, non-speaking order, which is procedurally flawed. The reasoning was that the assessee was not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and the order lacked proper justification. The ratio decidendi is that an order rejecting an application for registration under Section 12A must be a speaking order and must be passed after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the applicant, adhering to the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the ITAT set aside the impugned order of the learned CIT(Exemptions) and directed the CIT(Exemptions) to decide the matter afresh after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard and thereafter passing a speaking order in accordance with the law. No issue was expressly left undecided. The operative direction is to remand the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds on merits and agreed with the CIT(A)'s decision to restore the matter to the AO. The AO is directed to conduct a de novo assessment after verifying Form 10BB and allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the order passed by the learned CIT(Exemptions) was ex-parte and non-speaking. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the learned CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration. The impugned order of the CIT(Exemptions) was set aside with a direction to decide the matter afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The CIT(Exemptions) was further directed to pass a speaking order in accordance with the law. The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes. No specific issue was left undecided, as the entire matter was remitted for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO to decide the legal grounds raised by the assessee. For the penalty appeal, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded it back for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) passed a non-speaking ex-parte order. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration and a speaking order.
The Tribunal held that since no depreciation was claimed in the return of income, its disallowance was not warranted. Regarding Section 40(a)(ia), the Tribunal found that TDS was correctly deducted on security charges, payments for legal/professional charges were below the threshold, and no TDS was applicable on calendar purchases.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the AO to decide the legal grounds raised by the assessee. For the penalty appeal, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded it back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds on merits and agreed with the CIT(A)'s decision to restore the matter to the AO. The AO is directed to conduct a de novo assessment after verifying Form 10BB and allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were from the sale of non-judicial stamp papers, as evidenced by purchase records and commission income reflected in the 26AS statement. Therefore, the provisions of Section 69A were not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in extrapolating the amount from Rs. 14,800/- to Rs. 14,80,000/-. Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal directed that the addition should only be upheld to the extent of Rs. 14,800/-.
The Tribunal held that the date of handing over the seized material to the assessee's AO (02.11.2022) is to be considered the date of initiation of search for the assessee. Since this date is after 01.04.2021, Section 153C is not applicable as per the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2021.
The Tribunal held that the date of handing over the seized material to the assessee's AO (02.11.2022) is to be considered the date of initiation of search for the assessee. Since this date is after 01.04.2021, Section 153C is not applicable as per the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2021.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) rejected the applications without examining the object and activities of the assessee. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) rejected the applications without examining the object and activities of the assessee. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the application without proper consideration. It directed the CIT(E) to grant the assessee another opportunity to be heard on merit.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the application despite the documents and replies being furnished. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s rejection of the application for want of documents already on record was arbitrary and unsustainable. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after providing a fair opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and restored the matter for fresh consideration. The CIT(E) was directed to grant an opportunity of hearing to the assessee and decide the issue on merit.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) passed a non-speaking ex-parte order. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(Exemptions)'s order, remanding the matter for fresh consideration. The CIT(Exemptions) was directed to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and pass a speaking order.
The ITAT set aside the CIT's order and restored the matter for fresh consideration. The CIT was directed to grant the assessee an opportunity to be heard and pass a speaking order.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to establish that the cash receipt violated Section 269ST, which requires cash of Rs. 2 lakhs or more to be received in a day, in a single transaction, or relating to one event. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to consider crucial aspects of the case, including the nature of the entities involved and the circumstances surrounding the repayment of the amount. The CIT(A) also did not confront the AO with the material relied upon for its decision.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, agreeing that the amounts were brought-forward balances from prior years and not fresh credits in the current assessment year. The Tribunal found that the assessee had discharged the onus of proving the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transactions.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to establish that the cash receipt violated Section 269ST, which requires cash of Rs. 2 lakhs or more to be received in a day, in a single transaction, or relating to one event. Therefore, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, stating that additions under Section 153A can only be made if based on incriminating material found during search. Since no such material was linked to these specific additions, they were rightly deleted.
The Tribunal held that irrevocability and dissolution clauses are necessary for registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration after the assessee incorporates these clauses.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had duly explained the sources of acquisition of the jewellery found in her possession, considering the documentary evidence and the high income declared. The Tribunal deleted the addition sustained by the CIT(A) on account of unexplained jewellery.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the registration without providing adequate opportunity of being heard and in violation of natural justice principles. Therefore, the matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was acting as an authorized representative of his employer company, M/s Alchemist Infra Realty Limited, for the land purchase transactions. Therefore, the addition should have been considered in the hands of the company, not the individual assessee.
The tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications without granting a hearing. It directed the CIT(E) to provide an opportunity to the assessee and decide the matter on merit.