Loading ITAT cases…
1,426 orders · Page 25 of 29
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities for skill enhancement and capacity building of professionals governed by an Act of Parliament constitute a charitable purpose under Section 2(15). Following the Supreme Court's decision in the ICAI case, the Tribunal found the assessee's activities were not in the nature of trade, commerce, or business.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's activities, aimed at skill enhancement and capacity building for professionals governed by an Act of Parliament, constitute a charitable purpose under Section 2(15). Following the Supreme Court's decision in similar cases, the Tribunal found the assessee's activities to be educational and serving a wider public purpose.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's justification for non-compliance and, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to comply with future notices.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to non-service of notices. It set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee did not fully discharge her onus, cash turnover in her business was possible. Therefore, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 4 lakhs was deemed just and proper, granting relief of Rs. 32,12,000/-. The assessment under Section 115BBE was directed to be made under normal provisions as the section applies from 01.04.2017.
The Tribunal held that the AO made an ad-hoc disallowance without rejecting the audited books of accounts. It also emphasized the principle of consistency, noting similar expenses were allowed in previous years and a subsequent year.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum addition, which formed the basis for the penalty, was restored to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh adjudication by a coordinate bench, the penalty was not sustainable. The impugned penalty order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not admissible as the tax effect was less than Rs. 60 lacs, as per CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024. Consequently, the assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to non-service of notices. It set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to non-service of notices. It set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act on July 27, 2022, was barred by limitation. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed as void ab initio, following the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made under Section 143(1) for late deposit of PF/ESI is not legally sustainable. Relying on various judicial precedents, including the Chhattisgarh High Court, the Tribunal found that the issue was debatable and the AO should not have resorted to Section 143(1) for such a matter.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to non-service of notices. It set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the delay was a sufficient cause, considering the medical condition and hospitalization. The approach of the CIT(A) was considered hyper-technical.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to non-service of notices. It set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to non-service of notices. It set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee is a debt-free company and its working capital requirements are met by the head office, the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) cannot make working capital adjustments. The Tribunal also noted that the issue of interest under Section 234D is consequential.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to non-service of notices. It set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to non-service of notices. It set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matters back to the AO for fresh assessment. The AO was directed to consider the assessee's submissions and the findings from AY 2017-18 to arrive at a just conclusion.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed filed documentary evidence, including confirmations of gifts from their father and receipts from identified individuals. Both the Assessing Officer and NFAC had summarily dismissed these submissions without proper consideration.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matters back to the AO for fresh assessment. The AO was directed to consider the assessee's submissions and the findings from AY 2017-18 to arrive at a just conclusion.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matters back to the AO for fresh assessment. The AO was directed to consider the assessee's submissions and the findings from AY 2017-18 to arrive at a just conclusion.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the renewal application based on the advances made to related parties. It stated that the genuineness of the assessee's charitable activities were not in doubt and that any issues regarding the advances should be addressed during assessment proceedings, not at the registration stage.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's right to natural justice was violated as the impugned order was passed without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's justification for non-compliance and, in the interest of justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to comply with future notices.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemptions), Delhi, lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application as the assessee was registered in Mumbai. Consequently, the rejection order was quashed.
The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) had accepted the assessee's sales and a significant portion of cash withdrawals. The addition was made on a part of the cash deposits, and the Tribunal concluded that the additions were not justified based on the available evidence and the principles laid down in the Ranbaxy decision.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation for the delay and noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the case on its merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the tax under Section 115QA on capital reduction was not leviable as it was done in accordance with the Companies Act. It also held that the amounts recorded as advance from customers pertained to excess Common Area Maintenance charges that were contractually obligated to be repaid to tenants.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation for the delay and noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the case on its merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities.
The Tribunal condoned the delay after being satisfied with the assessee's justification. It also remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication to provide an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's justification for non-compliance and, in the interest of justice, remitted the matters back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to comply with future notices.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's justification for non-compliance and, in the interest of justice, remitted the matters back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to comply with future notices.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's justification for non-compliance and, in the interest of justice, remitted the matters back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to comply with future notices.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's justification for non-compliance and, in the interest of justice, remitted the matters back to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The assessee was directed to comply with future notices.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, remitted the issue back to the Assessing Officer (AO) to examine the claim for cost of improvement. The assessee was directed to provide all necessary details to the AO.
The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of cash turnover in the assessee's grocery business and directed a lumpsum addition of Rs. 1 lakh as unexplained income, providing significant relief to the assessee. The assessment under Section 115BBE was directed to be made under normal provisions as the section was effective from April 1, 2017.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal to be withdrawn. The reasoning was based on the assessee's request, supported by a detailed letter explaining the inadvertent error in filing the appeal before the wrong bench due to incorrect respondent details. The assessee had rectified the mistake by re-filing the appeal before the correct jurisdictional bench, the ITAT, Bangalore. The Revenue did not object to this request. Consequently, the Tribunal found no impediment to allowing the withdrawal. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn. No issues were expressly left undecided as the appeal was withdrawn by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO lacked the proper jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 as the returned income was below the monetary limits specified by CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 for cases in metro cities. This jurisdictional defect was considered fatal and not curable.
The Tribunal acknowledged the COVID-19 period as a valid reason for delay as per Supreme Court orders. For the remaining delay, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's claim of being preoccupied with personal family disputes and mental distress. The issue of condonation of delay was remanded back to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessment year fell outside the 6-year period for which assessment under Section 153C could be completed. It also found that the satisfaction note was not recorded and the approval under Section 153D lacked application of mind, vitiating the entire proceedings.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's right to natural justice was violated as the order was passed without adequate opportunity of being heard. The CIT(A) drew unilateral conclusions without confronting the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E)'s order was ex-parte and that a fresh application for 12A registration was pending. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for re-adjudication.
The tribunal held that the Delhi benches of the ITAT do not have territorial jurisdiction to decide the appeal. This was based on the location of the Assessing Officer and a Supreme Court decision on territorial jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the AO lacked the proper jurisdiction to issue the notice under Section 148 as the returned income was below the monetary limits specified by CBDT Instruction No. 1/2011 for cases in metro cities. This jurisdictional defect was considered fatal and not curable.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's justification for non-compliance, stating that the right to defend a case with evidence is inviolable. In the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the tax under Section 115QA on capital reduction was not leviable as it was done in accordance with the Companies Act. It also held that the amounts recorded as advance from customers pertained to excess Common Area Maintenance charges that were contractually obligated to be repaid to tenants.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was aware of previous decisions by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal for other assessment years where similar issues regarding the genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity of the lender were examined and found to be not bogus. No new evidence was presented for the current assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was aware of previous decisions by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal for other assessment years where similar issues regarding the genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity of the lender were examined and found to be not bogus. No new evidence was presented for the current assessment years.