Loading ITAT cases…
156 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal held that Section 87A is an independent rebate provision and its eligibility is not restricted by Section 115BAC or Section 111A for the assessment year in question. The plain language of the statute and the prospective nature of subsequent amendments support this view.
The Tribunal held that the failure to file Form 26A electronically was a procedural lapse, especially since the seller had discharged their tax liability. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to protection under the proviso to Section 201(1).
The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 4,00,000/- was made on the basis of mere probabilities and without legal basis, as it was not part of the original reasons for reopening. Therefore, the addition is not sustainable.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee seeking professional advice on the retrospective notification. A cost of Rs. 10,000 was imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and restored the matters for fresh consideration. The CIT(E) was directed to decide the applications afresh after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard and considering all documents, including the RPT Act registration and relevant CBDT circular.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and restored the matters for fresh consideration. The CIT(E) was directed to decide the applications afresh after affording the assessee an opportunity of being heard and considering all documents, including the RPT Act registration and relevant CBDT circular.
The Tribunal noted that while the contractor's affidavit confirmed receipt of payment, the assessee's bank account did not clearly show payments made to the contractor and other parties. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the AO wrongly followed the Section 148A procedure when reopening based on search information. The Section 148 notice, considered standalone, was issued beyond the three-year limitation period for income escaping assessment below Rs. 50 lakhs.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders and restored the matter to the AO for fresh consideration. A cost of Rs. 2,000 was imposed on the assessee for the non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the addition for TDS credit was not sustainable as the employer had rectified Form 26AS to reflect the correct salary. The addition for the gift was also deleted, considering it a reasonable amount from a father to his son, especially given the father's age and subsequent death.
The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, condoned the delay in filing Form 10BB and directed the authorities to allow the exemption under Section 11 after proper verification. The assessee's appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the sum of Rs. 14.15 crore, represented by vague diary notings of advances, did not qualify as undisclosed income as per the definition in Section 271AAB. The penalty on this amount was therefore rightly deleted by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate a material ground of appeal concerning the assessee's registration under Section 12A/12AA. This omission was significant as the CIT(A) relied on the non-registration to deny exemption. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had sufficiently explained the cash deposits with documentary evidence. The cash was regularly transferred to the Sangh, indicating it was not the assessee's personal income.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was filed with a delay of 110 days and no application for condonation of delay was made. Consequently, the appeal could not be entertained.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial onus by providing sufficient documentary evidence for the unsecured loan. Since the loan was received and repaid through banking channels within the same financial year, and the AO did not conduct independent inquiries, the addition made by the AO was unjustified.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) was incorrect in holding that the trust's activities were solely for a particular community, given its broad objects and the scholarships awarded to students of different backgrounds. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and directed a fresh assessment after providing the assessee with another opportunity for a hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause due to the society's rural operations and the reliance on external expertise. It also noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals without a proper hearing, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause due to the society's rural operations and the reliance on external expertise. It also noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeals without a proper hearing, violating principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities failed to consider the assessee's complaints and evidence of forged documents. Therefore, the matter was set aside to the AO for a fresh assessment after considering all submitted documents.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be granted an opportunity to furnish Form 26A before the AO for verification. The AO is directed to adjudicate the issue after verifying the certificates.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled the substantive condition of investing in a new asset within the prescribed period. It ruled that non-deposit in the Capital Gains Account Scheme under Section 54F(4) is procedural and does not debar the assessee from claiming the deduction if the substantive conditions are met. The Tribunal also found the denial based on joint ownership and proof of payment to be factually incorrect.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be granted an opportunity to furnish Form 26A before the AO for verification. The AO is directed to adjudicate the issue after verifying the certificates.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be granted an opportunity to furnish Form 26A before the AO for verification. The AO is directed to adjudicate the issue after verifying the certificates.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be granted an opportunity to furnish Form 26A before the AO for verification. The AO is directed to adjudicate the issue after verifying the certificates.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, the assessee should be granted an opportunity to furnish Form 26A before the AO for verification. The AO is directed to adjudicate the issue after verifying the certificates.
The assessee's authorized representative filed an application to withdraw the present appeal. The tribunal considered the application and allowed the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the deposit of Rs. 2,41,642 was out of the maturity proceeds of an FDR, and cash deposits of Rs. 1,06,000 were explained by prior cash withdrawals. The addition of Rs. 1,50,000 as regular income was found to be arbitrary and without basis.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(E) and directed them to provide the assessee with another opportunity to be heard. The CIT(E) is to pass a fresh order on merits regarding the Section 80G(5) application.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had passed the order without properly verifying the documents submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was set aside and remanded back to the CIT(E) with a direction to provide another opportunity for hearing and pass an order on merits.
The Tribunal held that appeals arising from orders passed by the CIT(E), Jaipur are exclusively cognizable by the Jodhpur Bench. Therefore, the appeal filed before the Jaipur Bench was not maintainable.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order denying 80G registration and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E). The CIT(E) is directed to consider the 80G registration application along with the pending 12AB registration application and pass a fresh order on merits.
The assessee's authorized representative filed an application seeking permission to withdraw the present appeal. The Tribunal considered the application and allowed the withdrawal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and rejected the assessee's adjournment request. It set aside the matter to the AO to provide one more opportunity for the assessee to present its case on merits.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment orders, which formed the basis for the penalty proceedings, were set aside by the CIT(A), the penalty proceedings were not maintainable at that stage. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits based on available material, even if the assessee was negligent. The ex-parte order was set aside to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal, relying on Supreme Court judgments, held that procedural requirements should not override substantive rights and directed the AO to provide an opportunity to the assessee to present Form 67 and pass a fresh order.
The Tribunal considered the application filed by the assessee. Based on the application, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal found that the delay was caused by a 'sufficient cause' due to the negligence or oversight of the counsel. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the appeal was sent back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that Section 87A provides rebate on the entire tax liability computed on total income, without distinguishing between normal and special rate incomes like STCG. The Explanatory Memorandum to the Finance Bill 2025 was not considered binding for the relevant assessment year.
The Tribunal held that Section 87A provides rebate on the entire tax liability computed on total income, without distinguishing between normal income and special rate income like STCG. The existing law did not restrict this rebate, and the denial by CPC was based on system logic, not statutory mandate.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment orders, which formed the basis for the penalty proceedings, were set aside by the CIT(A), the penalty proceedings were not maintainable at that stage. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's accumulated savings of Rs. 2,43,140/- were reasonable given his age and earning period. Therefore, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was ordered to be deleted.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. This was based on the assessee's voluntary application to withdraw the appeal due to the pendency of a fresh registration application.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A), considering the COVID-19 pandemic and the assessee's charitable nature. The orders of the CIT(A) were set aside and the appeals were remanded back for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s order, finding no perversity in the facts or law. The appellant failed to pursue the appeal or provide evidence of 12AB registration, and the trust's religious activities rendered it ineligible for 80G approval.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer could not proceed solely on seized material without providing the assessee an opportunity for cross-verification. The CIT(A) also failed to provide this opportunity.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had not maintained books of accounts, the penalty under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited was not sustainable. The AO should have invoked Section 271A for not maintaining books of accounts.
The Tribunal held that the cash withdrawals alone did not indicate escaped income, and the reassessment was therefore baseless. Furthermore, the AO erred in estimating income without rejecting the assessee's books of account or providing comparable data.
The Tribunal held that since the assessment orders, which formed the basis for the penalty proceedings, were set aside by the CIT(A), the penalty proceedings were not maintainable at that stage. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.