Loading ITAT cases…
156 orders · Page 3 of 4
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the rebate under Section 87A on STCG. The absence of an express bar in Section 87A or Section 111A, coupled with the prospective nature of subsequent amendments, supports this entitlement.
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(A)'s decision, agreeing that the services rendered were directly connected to oil exploration and thus fell under Section 44BB of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the assessee was not in default for short TDS deduction.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the appeal on merits and did not comply with Section 250(6) of the Act. The dismissal was also due to the assessee's death during the pendency of the appeal before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause due to administrative procedures. It upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the assessment order was infructuous because the underlying Section 263 order was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided a reasonable cause for the non-compliance with the notices. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was therefore directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's explanation for the delay and for not filing the original return to be bona fide and substantiated. Consequently, the penalty levied under Section 270A was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided a reasonable cause for the non-compliance with the notices. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was therefore directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided a reasonable cause for the non-compliance with the notices. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was therefore directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided a reasonable cause for the non-compliance with the notices. The penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was therefore directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the rebate under section 87A is allowable on short-term capital gains even under the section 115BAC regime. This decision followed the precedent set by coordinate benches of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and directed them to pass fresh orders after considering the assessee's submissions, affidavit, and relevant materials. The assessee was also directed to cooperate by providing all necessary documents.
The tribunal held that the share capital expenses were eligible for amortisation under Section 35D, the disallowance under Section 14A was unsustainable as no exempt income was earned, and the socio-economic expenses were allowable business expenditures. The penalty proceedings were dismissed as premature.
The Tribunal held that the rebate under Section 87A is allowable on STCG under Section 111A, even when opting for the Section 115BAC regime. This decision followed the precedent set by coordinate benches of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(E) and directed them to pass fresh orders after considering the assessee's submissions, affidavit, and relevant materials. The assessee was also directed to cooperate by providing all necessary documents.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal. The CIT(E) was directed to verify the application filed in Form 10AB for registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(ii) and dispose of it as per law.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to communication issues. It further held that the audited accounts provided sufficient details for the claimed revenue expenditure, which was necessary for running the society.
The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee's lack of familiarity with technicalities. The appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, with a cost imposed on the assessee for laxity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause due to the assessee's lack of familiarity with technicalities. The appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment, with a cost imposed on the assessee for laxity.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. This was done in the interest of substantial justice, allowing the assessee an opportunity to be heard on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had not properly examined the provisions of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act and the genuineness of activities due to lack of material. Therefore, the matter was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the unexplained advances of Rs. 8,95,00,000 did not fall within the statutory definition of 'undisclosed income' for the purpose of levying penalty under section 271AAB. The penalty on this amount was rightly deleted by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the cash deposits were adequately explained by increased cash sales during the demonetization period, which was permissible for petrol pumps. The books of accounts were found to be supported by documentary evidence and no specific defects were identified.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 based on third-party seized material, without recording independent satisfaction and following the procedure under Section 153C, are void. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision on this matter.
The Tribunal held that the addition under Section 69A was unsustainable as it was based on uncorroborated third-party material without establishing the assessee's ownership or possession of the alleged money. However, the disallowance under Section 40A(3) was confirmed as the assessee failed to demonstrate applicability of Rule 6DD.
The Tribunal held that the rebate under Section 87A is allowable on STCG under Section 111A even when opting for the Section 115BAC regime. This decision followed previous rulings by coordinate benches and the Ahmedabad bench.
The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. This was due to a subsequent Supreme Court decision setting aside previous High Court judgments and the retrospective insertion of Section 147A, which redefined 'Assessing Officer' for notice issuance.
The Tribunal held that a pending appeal does not bar a new application for registration. The CIT(E) was obligated to examine the fresh application on its merits, independently of the previous rejection.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the application based on an incorrect assumption of facts, as the assessee had submitted a reply with necessary evidence before the rejection order. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) rejected the application based on an incorrect assumption of facts, as the assessee had submitted a reply with necessary evidence before the rejection order. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147 based on third-party seized material, without recording independent satisfaction and following the procedure under Section 153C, are void. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision on this matter.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable before the Jaipur Bench due to incorrect territorial jurisdiction. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to refile before the Jodhpur Bench.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) to provide one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was directed to produce all relevant documents for granting registration.
The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable before the Jaipur Bench due to incorrect territorial jurisdiction. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to refile before the Jodhpur Bench.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(E) and remanded the matter back to the CIT(E) to provide one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee was directed to produce all relevant documents for granting registration.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee was granted registration under Section 12AB of the Act, the grounds for rejection for 80G approval (lack of RPT registration and non-genuine activities) were no longer valid. The issue of incomplete Form 10AB was also deemed inconsequential in light of the 12AB registration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s orders were not barred by limitation as Section 153(3) and Section 12AA(2) were not applicable to the facts of the case. However, considering the assessee's contention regarding lack of opportunity, the Tribunal restored the issue back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that the bank statements and audited financial statements considered by the CIT(A) were part of the assessment records and not additional evidence. Therefore, the requirement to confront them to the AO was not applicable, and the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition was upheld.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s orders were not barred by limitation as Section 153(3) and Section 12AA(2) were not applicable to the facts of the case. However, considering the assessee's contention regarding lack of opportunity, the Tribunal restored the issue back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the appellant was granted registration under section 12AB, the denial of 80G registration on grounds of non-genuineness was untenable. The matter was allowed subject to the appellant producing registration under the RPT Act.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) erred in dismissing the applications ex-parte without ensuring proper service of notices and providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) erred in dismissing the applications ex-parte without ensuring proper service of notices and providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The impugned orders were set aside.
The Tribunal held that merely increasing the rent does not automatically disentitle the appellant to registration, especially when the aims and objects of the trust were not disputed. The CIT(E) should have examined the amended lease deed and additional construction before invoking section 13(1)(c).
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding sufficient cause. It held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal ex-parte without providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order, directing them to grant registration after verifying the objects and allowing the assessee a fresh opportunity to present evidence. The genuineness of activities can be tested during assessment proceedings, not at the registration stage.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in following the Rajasthan High Court's judgment in the assessee's own case, as the Supreme Court had dismissed the Revenue's SLP against that judgment. Therefore, the High Court's decision had attained finality.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for a fresh decision on merits. The assessee was directed to cooperate and avoid unnecessary adjournments in the fresh proceedings before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable before the Jaipur Bench as it fell outside its territorial jurisdiction. The assessee was granted liberty to file the appeal before the appropriate forum.
The Tribunal held that since the trust had a single, determined beneficiary, it should be taxed at individual slab rates, not MMR. The lower authorities erred in denying this benefit and rejecting the rectification.