Loading ITAT cases…
69 orders · Page 1 of 2
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to the negligence of the assessee's previous counsel. Both the quantum appeal and the penalty appeal were remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the applicability of amended provisions of Section 80IB(10) depends on the date of project approval and commencement. The issue of completion certificate was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication, subject to Supreme Court decisions. The denial based on excess commercial area was also remanded for verification against the local authority's approved plan.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, finding sufficient cause due to the negligence of the assessee's previous counsel. Both the quantum appeal and the penalty appeal were remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the applicability of amended provisions of Section 80IB(10) depends on the date of project approval and commencement. The issue of completion certificate was remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication, subject to Supreme Court decisions. The denial based on excess commercial area was also remanded for verification against the local authority's approved plan.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to file a rejoinder and make submissions. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a fresh order considering these submissions.
The Tribunal found that the appeals involved complex issues regarding jurisdiction of multiple AOs and the merits of the additions made. To ensure natural justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to remand the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by dismissing the appeal without granting a proper hearing to explain the delay. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the matters should be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for a proper adjudication afresh. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's grounds, which included issues of jurisdiction, merits of additions, lack of opportunity, and the ex-parte nature of the CIT(A)'s orders. The Tribunal noted that both appeals related to the same Assessment Year 2012-13 but originated from different assessment orders by different AOs concerning different parcels of the same property sold by the assessee. The assessee claimed joint ownership with his brother and mother, but the entire sale proceeds were taxed in his hands, and also in his mother's hands, without allowing deductions. The Tribunal found that the orders of the first appellate authority were passed under the Faceless Scheme without giving adequate opportunities to the assessee. The Tribunal also considered the assessee's objections against the jurisdiction assumed by two different AOs and the merits of the additions. Therefore, to ensure natural justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to remand the matters to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to give the assessee an opportunity of hearing and pass an appropriate order, uninfluenced by earlier orders. The assessee was also directed to ensure participation in the hearings. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, considering the bonafide belief of the assessee and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal found that the Pr. CIT's order under Section 263 was not sustainable as it was based on incorrect facts and assumptions.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the present appeal was below the revised monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular revised the monetary threshold for filing appeals to Rs. 60 lakhs. As the tax effect in the present case was Rs. 59,18,179/-, which is below the prescribed limit, the appeal was not maintainable. The revenue was not expected to pursue appeals below this limit.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT's circular No. 9/2024 mandates that appeals with a tax effect of less than Rs. 60 lakhs should not be filed before the Tribunal. The current appeal's tax effect is Rs. 52,05,065/-, which is below the stipulated limit. Therefore, the appeal is not maintainable.
अदालत ने पाया कि विवादित मुद्दों में कर का प्रभाव क्रमशः ₹50,50,930/- और ₹50,50,610/- था, जो ₹60 लाख की संशोधित मौद्रिक सीमा से कम था। इसलिए, परिपत्र के अनुसार, राजस्व को इन अपीलों पर जोर नहीं देना चाहिए था।
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the present appeal was below the revised monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT circular. Therefore, the appeal was not maintainable.
The Tribunal noted that the CBDT circular dated 17.09.2024, revising the monetary limit for appeals to Rs. 60 lakhs, is applicable retrospectively. Since the appeal's tax effect is below this limit, the Revenue is not expected to pursue it.
अपील की सुनवाई के दौरान, यह पाया गया कि केंद्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड (सीबीडीटी) द्वारा जारी नवीनतम परिपत्र संख्या 9/2024 के अनुसार, अधिकरण के समक्ष अपील दाखिल करने के लिए वित्तीय सीमा को 60 लाख रुपये तक संशोधित किया गया है। वर्तमान अपील में कर का प्रभाव 54,42,519 रुपये है, जो सीबीडीटी द्वारा निर्धारित सीमा से कम है।
अदालत ने पाया कि विवादित मुद्दों में कर का प्रभाव क्रमशः ₹50,50,930/- और ₹50,50,610/- था, जो ₹60 लाख की संशोधित मौद्रिक सीमा से कम था। इसलिए, परिपत्र के अनुसार, राजस्व को इन अपीलों पर जोर नहीं देना चाहिए था।
अधिकरण ने पाया कि सीबीडीटी के परिपत्र के अनुसार, 60 लाख रुपये से अधिक कर प्रभाव वाले मामलों में ही अपील दाखिल की जानी चाहिए। इस मामले में कर का प्रभाव 51,76,137 रुपये है, जो निर्धारित सीमा से कम है।
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in allowing the delayed filing of the audit report. The audit report must be filed along with the Income Tax Return as per Section 12A(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged the onus to prove the genuineness of the transaction by producing documentary evidence, including bank statements, demat account statements, and contract notes. Unless contrary evidence is brought on record, the transaction should be considered genuine.
The tribunal noted that the CBDT circular dated 15.03.2024 excluded audit objections from the exception clause. The tribunal also referred to CBDT circulars that specified monetary limits for filing appeals, and that the present appeal did not meet the criteria for filing.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee and without proper verification of notices issued. The AO's assessment was based on best judgment, treating the entire sale consideration as taxable without allowing deductions for the cost of acquisition and under Section 54 of the Act.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and considered the appeal. It noted that the tax effect was below the revised monetary limit of Rs. 60 lakhs prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 9/2024, making the appeal not maintainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 349 days, subject to a cost of Rs. 2,500/- to be paid to the Prime Minister National Relief Fund. The Tribunal also ruled that the CPC did not have the jurisdiction to disallow the deduction under Section 80P in the intimation order passed under Section 143(1) before the amendment by the Finance Act 2021.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee and without proper verification of notices issued. The AO's assessment was based on best judgment, treating the entire sale consideration as taxable without allowing deductions for the cost of acquisition and under Section 54 of the Act.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee and without proper verification of notices issued. The AO's assessment was based on best judgment, treating the entire sale consideration as taxable without allowing deductions for the cost of acquisition and under Section 54 of the Act.
The Tribunal noted that the first notice was issued during the COVID-19 period, and the second notice was issued after a significant gap. The assessee's explanation regarding the migration of the appeal and lack of awareness of e-mailed notices was considered. The Departmental Representative raised no objection to remanding the matter.
The tribunal held that an aggrieved ex-partner has the right to appeal an assessment order passed against a dissolved firm. The CIT(A)'s order dismissing the appeal as not maintainable was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the case warranted a fresh consideration by the CIT(E). While acknowledging that registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) requires prior registration under Section 12A/12AA before 01.04.2021, the Tribunal noted the assessee's claim of having prior registration, evidenced by ancillary documents like donation receipts and an old official letter, despite the loss of original certificates in a fire. The Tribunal found that the decisions in Morbi Plot Jain Tapgachi Sangh and Sardar Bhavan Trust were applicable. It directed the CIT(E) to thoroughly examine departmental records to ascertain the existence of prior registrations and decide the matter afresh with a holistic and judicious approach, affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing and considering all submissions. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with the case remitted back to the CIT(E).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) wrongly invoked Section 263 as the issue of exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) was beyond the scope of the reassessment proceedings conducted by the AO. However, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s direction regarding the cash deposit issue, noting the inconsistency between the two assessment orders.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was barred by limitation under both old and new provisions. Additionally, the approval obtained for issuing the notice was not in accordance with the mandatory requirements of Section 151(ii) of the Act.
अधिकरण ने पाया कि वर्तमान मामले में विवादित मुद्दों में कर का प्रभाव 51,37,882 रुपये है, जो सीबीडीटी द्वारा निर्धारित 60 लाख रुपये की सीमा से कम है। परिपत्र के अनुसार, राजस्व को इस अपील पर आगे बढ़ना अपेक्षित नहीं है।
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued by the AO was vague as it did not specify whether the assessee concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars. Relying on jurisdictional High Court decisions, the Tribunal found the notice and subsequent proceedings to be invalid.
अदालत ने पाया कि सीबीडीटी के परिपत्र संख्या 9/2024 के अनुसार, 60 लाख रुपये से कम कर प्रभाव वाली अपीलों को विभाग द्वारा दाखिल नहीं किया जाना चाहिए। आक्षेपित प्रकरण में कर प्रभाव 1,56,000/- रुपये है, जो निर्धारित सीमा से कम है।
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deciding the issues on merit after the AO failed to submit a remand report, despite being provided with additional evidence by the assessee. The revenue's grounds regarding the admission of additional evidence and the deletion of additions were rejected.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was justified in deciding the issues on merit after the AO failed to submit a remand report, despite being provided with additional evidence by the assessee. The revenue's grounds regarding the admission of additional evidence and the deletion of additions were rejected.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal followed decisions of various High Courts and its own previous rulings that supported this view.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on its investments with cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal followed decisions of various High Courts and its own previous rulings that supported this view.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the audit report (Form 10BB) is a procedural omission and not an impediment to claiming exemption, especially when the approval was granted for the relevant assessment year. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not consider the assessee's requests for adjournment and rejected the applications summarily. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) did not consider the assessee's requests for adjournment and rejected the applications summarily. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's proposal to remand the issues to the Jurisdictional AO for fresh verification and adjudication. The assessee was given an opportunity to make full submissions before the AO.
The Tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 80-IC, finding that the reassessment proceedings were not sustainable. The Tribunal also allowed certain disallowed expenses related to 'cost of material consumed' but remanded one issue regarding education expenses for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 80-IC, finding that the reassessment proceedings were not sustainable. The Tribunal also allowed certain disallowed expenses related to 'cost of material consumed' but remanded one issue regarding education expenses for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 80-IC, finding that the reassessment proceedings were not sustainable. The Tribunal also allowed certain disallowed expenses related to 'cost of material consumed' but remanded one issue regarding education expenses for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 80-IC, finding that the reassessment proceedings were not sustainable. The Tribunal also allowed certain disallowed expenses related to 'cost of material consumed' but remanded one issue regarding education expenses for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 80-IC, finding that the reassessment proceedings were not sustainable. The Tribunal also allowed certain disallowed expenses related to 'cost of material consumed' but remanded one issue regarding education expenses for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the deduction under Section 80-IC, finding that the reassessment proceedings were not sustainable. The Tribunal also allowed certain disallowed expenses related to 'cost of material consumed' but remanded one issue regarding education expenses for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adjudicated the grounds on merit as required by law. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a proper adjudication on merit, with directions for the assessee to participate and for the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity of hearing.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. This was because the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without giving the assessee an effective opportunity to be heard, and the assessment order was also ex-parte.