Loading ITAT cases…
1,426 orders · Page 14 of 29
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), finding reasonable cause. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) citing the assessee's reasonable cause of medical illness. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that following a recent revision of the exemption limit under Section 10(10AA) to Rs. 25,00,000 by the CBDT, the assessee's claim of Rs. 6,97,100 is eligible for full exemption. The AO is directed to allow the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not properly consider the application and the documents submitted. To prevent injustice, the Tribunal granted the assessee a further opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal heard both parties and, with no objection from the Department, allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were bad in law due to the consolidated satisfaction note for multiple years and the absence of specific reference to seized material triggering jurisdiction under Section 153C. The approval granted under Section 153D was also found to be mechanical and without application of mind.
The Tribunal held that a notice under Section 148 cannot be issued on the same information on which a reassessment has already been completed. Therefore, the second reopening of the case was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that a second reopening under Section 148 cannot be sustained if the first reopening was based on the same information without any new evidence. Therefore, the reassessment order was quashed.
The Tribunal heard both parties and, with no objection from the Department, allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation for the delay and noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the case on merits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment and reconsideration of the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the learned CIT(E) erred in rejecting the assessee's application for registration. Regarding the donation of ₹50,000, the Tribunal found from the paper book that it was made on 30th October, 2025, which contradicted the CIT(E)'s premise that it was made after the issuance of notice. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's categorical admission that no sports activities were carried out for the last three years, but noted that taxes were paid on the accumulated income for the relevant assessment years. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had complied with all conditions under Section 12A, and the CIT(E) had not cast any doubt on the charitable nature of the assessee's objects and activities. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee is a genuine trust and the rejection of registration by the CIT(E) was without basis. The Tribunal directed the learned CIT(E) to grant registration to the assessee trust. The order of the learned CIT(E) was reversed, and the appeal of the assessee was allowed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding reasonable cause and no deliberate intention to delay. The issue of share capital was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with directions to obtain a remand report from the AO.
The Tribunal heard both parties and, with no objection from the Department, allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation for the delay and noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the case on merits. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment and reconsideration of the penalty.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue had not challenged the CIT(A)'s finding regarding the invalidity of the reassessment proceedings. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order quashing the reassessment order became final.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions. The AO's disallowance of consumables expenditure was considered ad-hoc and unsubstantiated. The sale of goods was found to be included in the sale of services with supporting evidence produced during appeal.
The Tribunal held that the Goetze (India) Ltd. ruling applies to assessing authorities, not appellate forums like the ITAT. It noted that the assessee consistently received exemption for similar income in preceding and succeeding years, indicating the income is indeed exempt.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps in virtual hearings and restored the appeal to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was given three effective opportunities for hearing at their risk.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the AO for a fresh assessment. The AO was directed to provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal considered the applications for withdrawal and, with no objection from the Department, allowed the withdrawal. Consequently, all six appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the financial transactions required proper verification by the AO. The CIT(A)'s order to set aside the issue and direct a fresh assessment with opportunities to the assessee was deemed just and proper.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given an opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for proper consideration.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's financial and personal difficulties leading to lack of proper representation, felt that in the interest of justice, the assessee deserves a chance to prove her case. The impugned order was set aside, the delay condoned, and the matter remitted back to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal noted that the defects pointed out by the registry were not rectified by the assessee. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition, as there was no evidence to support the department's claim that the donations were bogus. The Revenue failed to provide any rebuttal to this finding.
The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were not sustainable due to a lack of cogent material and insufficient investigation. The assessee had discharged the initial onus by providing evidence of genuine transactions through banking channels.
The Tribunal held that the omission to fill column 40 of Form 3CD, due to a software error and inadvertence, constituted a "reasonable cause" under Section 273B of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the penalty levied was not sustainable.
The Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances, decided that a lumpsum addition of Rs. 1 lakh would be just and proper, providing relief of Rs. 11.48 lakhs to the assessee. It was also held that Section 115BBE would only apply to transactions on or after April 1, 2017.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum assessment orders, which formed the basis for the penalties, were quashed, the penalties could not be sustained. The Tribunal relied on a Gujarat High Court decision where penalty proceedings were quashed along with the reopening of assessment.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not adequately present facts before the lower authorities. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the quantum and penalty matters were remanded to the AO for fresh assessment and adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not consider the assessee's accumulated past savings and agricultural income. Therefore, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 3 lakhs was considered to meet the ends of justice.
The Tribunal noted the conflicting judicial precedents on the permissibility of PF and ESI disallowances under section 143(1)(a). In the absence of jurisdictional High Court guidance, the Tribunal adopted the view favoring the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum assessment orders, which formed the basis for the penalties, were quashed, the penalties could not be sustained. The Tribunal relied on a Gujarat High Court decision where penalty proceedings were quashed along with the reopening of assessment.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum assessment orders, which formed the basis for the penalties, were quashed, the penalties could not be sustained. The Tribunal relied on a Gujarat High Court decision where penalty proceedings were quashed along with the reopening of assessment.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum assessment orders, which formed the basis for the penalties, were quashed, the penalties could not be sustained. The Tribunal relied on a Gujarat High Court decision where penalty proceedings were quashed along with the reopening of assessment.
The Tribunal held that once the sole subject matter of the reopening was deleted by the lower appellate authority, the reopening itself was invalid. All other remaining disallowances became academic.
The Tribunal reduced the addition for unexplained cash deposit to Rs. 3 lakhs, granting relief of Rs. 15 lakhs. It also directed that the assessment under Section 115BBE should be under normal provisions as the section was not applicable to the transaction period.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities failed to establish that the agricultural land in question was a capital asset as defined in the Act. Therefore, the addition made under section 56(2)(x) was deleted.
The Tribunal directed the CIT(A)/NFAC to admit the additional evidence and obtain a remand report from the Assessing Officer. The taxpayer will have three effective opportunities to plead and prove their case during remand proceedings.
The Tribunal reduced the addition to Rs. 2,00,000/-, considering the cash flow statement but noting lack of complete satisfaction from lower authorities. It also directed assessment under normal provisions, not Section 115BBE, as the provision was effective from April 1, 2017.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not adequately present facts before the lower authorities. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the quantum and penalty matters were remanded to the AO for fresh assessment and adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the ex-parte decision by the CIT(A) was made without a reasonable opportunity of hearing for the assessee. The notices were not properly served, and the mode of service was not reflected in the order.
The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal related to the additions had been remanded back to the AO. Therefore, the penalty proceedings were also remitted to the AO to decide afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that a penalty for concealment can only survive if there is a confirmed quantum addition. Since the quantum addition was set aside, the penalty cannot survive on its own.
The tribunal held that there is no statutory precondition preventing an assessee from claiming exemption under Section 10(26AAB) even if they have claimed exemption under Section 11(1). The assessee was deemed eligible for the exemption.
The Tribunal heard both parties and, with no objection from the Department, allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were explained by student fees, and the books of accounts could not be summarily rejected without specific defects being pointed out. Therefore, both the cash addition and the GP estimation were deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing substantial justice over technicalities and the assessee's demonstrated sufficient cause. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessment orders were bad in law due to the consolidated satisfaction note for multiple years and the absence of specific reference to seized material triggering jurisdiction under Section 153C. The approval granted under Section 153D was also found to be mechanical and without application of mind.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to sufficient cause. It set aside the ex-parte orders of the lower authorities and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard and present necessary explanations.