Loading ITAT cases…
135 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10AB was due to technical errors and not intentional. Considering the principles of natural justice and guidelines for condoning delays, the issue was remanded back to the CIT(Exemptions) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee an opportunity to present his case with requisite evidence. A penalty of Rs. 2,000 was levied on the assessee for non-compliance.
The Tribunal found that the assessee produced bank statements and cash books showing withdrawals and deposits, indicating sufficient cash availability for the gift. If the bank statements are found to be genuine upon verification, the addition made by the Assessing Officer needs to be deleted.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to provide details to the lower authorities. However, considering the assessee's plea for a reasonable opportunity to present evidence, the case was restored to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunity to the AO to verify the additional evidence. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, directing him to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present his case and documentary evidence.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with one more opportunity to substantiate its case with necessary details and documentary evidence. A cost of Rs. 5000/- was levied on the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one more opportunity to present their case with supporting documents. A penalty of Rs. 5000/- was levied on the assessee for non-compliance.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order on the Section 80GGC deduction and that the assessee had new evidence for the bank credits. Therefore, both issues were remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to substantiate its claims before the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to submit requisite details and evidence.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment u/s 153A accepted the returned income without additions, there was no concealment for penalty purposes. Furthermore, the voluntary surrender of income to buy peace, without supporting incriminating material for cash receipt, cannot be considered deemed concealment under Explanation 5A.
The Tribunal directed the exclusion of three comparables based on functional dissimilarity, following earlier coordinate bench decisions. The issue of one comparable (MPS Limited) was remitted to the AO for de novo adjudication. The inclusion of two other comparables was directed for verification and reconsideration by the AO. The interest on receivables was allowed partly by directing the AO to adopt LIBOR+200 points.
The Tribunal held that the DRP erred in excluding Evoke Technologies Pvt Ltd, Akshay Software Technologies Ltd, Mindtree Ltd, and R.S. Software India Ltd. The Tribunal also held that Persistent Systems Ltd and Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd were not comparable and should be excluded.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act as it failed to decide the appeal on merits. The tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's petition for additional evidence, noting that the CIT(A) had not explicitly requested these documents. The issues related to Section 80P and interest disallowance were set aside to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act as it failed to decide the appeal on merits. The tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment order for AY 2016-17 was quashed, there was no assessable income for that year. Consequently, the carried forward losses from AY 2016-17 should be considered for AY 2017-18.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act as it failed to decide the appeal on merits. The tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without deciding the appeal on merits. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after affording an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case. A penalty of Rs. 5000/- was levied on the assessee for non-compliance with notices.
The Tribunal held that the closing cash balance of Rs. 6,97,209/- as on November 8, 2016, should be considered explained. However, for the remaining balance of cash deposits, the assessee failed to provide evidence of cash sales or realization from debtors, thus the addition for the balance amount was sustained.
The Tribunal condoned the inordinate delay in filing the appeals, emphasizing that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. Both the quantum appeal and the penalty appeal were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the inordinate delay in filing the appeals, emphasizing that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities. Both the quantum appeal and the penalty appeal were restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the discount on the issue of ESOP is an allowable expenditure. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and submit documentary evidence. The assessee was directed to provide all necessary details without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal accepted the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals as they had subsequently obtained the required registration. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the reasons provided for the delay in filing the appeal did not constitute a reasonable cause. However, acknowledging that the assessee had filed a fresh application as per CBDT circulars, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to consider the fresh application positively, provided other conditions are met.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), holding that the pandemic constituted a sufficient cause. The matter was set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to comply with the CIT(A)'s notices, resulting in ex-parte orders. However, considering the assessee is now ready to produce evidence, a fresh opportunity should be granted.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. This was done to provide the assessee with an opportunity to present documentary evidence explaining the cash deposits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to comply with the CIT(A)'s notices, resulting in ex-parte orders. However, considering the assessee is now ready to produce evidence, a fresh opportunity should be granted.
The Tribunal found that the reasons provided for the delay in filing the appeal did not constitute a reasonable cause. However, acknowledging that the assessee had filed a fresh application as per CBDT circulars, the Tribunal directed the CIT(E) to consider the fresh application positively, provided other conditions are met.
The Tribunal accepted the assessees' request to withdraw their appeals as they had subsequently obtained the required registration. The appeals were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to comply with CIT(A)'s notices, resulting in ex-parte orders. However, since the assessee is now ready to produce evidence, a fresh opportunity should be granted.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and restored the application. The assessee was granted an opportunity to present their case on merits before the CIT(E), with a clear instruction that no further opportunities would be given.