Loading ITAT cases…
64 orders · Page 2 of 2
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not submitted the leave and license agreement and the applicability of the MP Nursing Homes Registration Act was unclear. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for de novo consideration.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's illiteracy and genuine difficulties. The assessment order and penalty orders were set aside and remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal found the order to be ex-parte as there was no material on record for the CIT(E) to decide on merits due to the non-reply. Considering the assessee's undertaking to file a comprehensive reply, the Tribunal set aside the order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's illiteracy and genuine difficulties. The assessment order and penalty orders were set aside and remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal noted that while some notices were sent to an incorrect email, the assessee was non-compliant for the initial notices sent to the correct email. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for a de novo hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the 51-day delay, finding that the reason provided by the assessee constituted a sufficient cause. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication. This was done because both parties agreed to a remand, and the Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the lower authorities' orders were ex-parte and violated principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that notices were not served on the correct email address, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to examine the capital gains issue as it was outside the scope of limited scrutiny. The assessment order was quashed due to this jurisdictional defect.
The Tribunal held that the tax effect in the present appeal was below the revised monetary limit prescribed by the CBDT. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was not maintainable.
The Tribunal granted permission to withdraw the appeal and dismissed it as withdrawn. The assessee's appeal was consequently dismissed.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee sought renewal of registration under section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) and that the CIT(E)'s order rejected both this application and an application for approval under section 80G(5)(ii). However, the assessee's appeal (Form No. 36) only raised a ground challenging the rejection of the section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) application. Therefore, the Tribunal decided not to adjudicate the matter relating to section 80G approval. Regarding the substantive issue of section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) registration, the Tribunal observed that the CIT(E) rejected the application based on the objects being religious and the potential applicability of section 13(1)(b). However, the Tribunal found that the assessee amended its bye-laws on 23.12.2025, subsequent to the CIT(E)'s order of 27.11.2025. Since these amended bye-laws were not available to the CIT(E) when passing the order, the Tribunal held that the CIT(E) could not be faulted for the order based on the material available at that time. The Tribunal did not admit the additional evidence (including amended bye-laws) as it would not alter the basis of the impugned order. However, in the interest of justice, the assessee was granted liberty to file a fresh application before the CIT(E) with the amended bye-laws and other relevant material, which the CIT(E) would consider independently. The appeal was dismissed with this liberty.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's illiteracy and genuine difficulties. The assessment order and penalty orders were set aside and remanded back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to discharge its onus to prove that the balance sum for investment in Mangal Murti Minerals was not paid. Therefore, this specific issue was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.