Loading ITAT cases…
216 orders · Page 1 of 5
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal based on the Vivad se Vishwas scheme, as it was not opted for by the assessee. The confusion arose due to the amalgamation of entities and separate litigations. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the appeal was restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 442 days, finding the reasons cited in the affidavit plausible and genuine. Observing that the assessee did not receive sufficient opportunity before the CIT(A), the Tribunal restored the issues to the Id. CIT(A) for fresh re-adjudication, directing that adequate opportunity be provided to the assessee and requiring their cooperation.
The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening the assessment was granted by the wrong authority (PCIT instead of PCCIT) as per the amended provisions of Section 151. Therefore, the entire reassessment proceedings are bad in law and liable to be quashed.
The Tribunal observed that the land was consistently shown as a fixed asset in the balance sheet and the department had accepted gains from similar sales as capital gains under Section 143(3) in the previous assessment year. Applying the rule of consistency, the Tribunal ruled that the income should be treated as capital gains, thereby deleting the addition made by the AO.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was issued and served beyond the prescribed limitation period. Therefore, the assessment proceedings were not sustainable in law.
The ITAT, after hearing the Ld. DR and reviewing the lower authorities' orders and cited case laws, found no merit in the assessee's appeal. It held that the charging of a high share premium despite poor financials and the non-appearance of directors before the Ld. AO were fatal to the assessee's case, concluding that Section 68 provisions were correctly applied.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the point of limitation, finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate any reasonable cause for the delay, even though it was only one day. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that condonation of delay requires 'sufficient cause' and judicious exercise of discretion, which was lacking due to the appellant's non-participation and failure to explain the delay.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal based on the Vivad se Vishwas scheme, as it was not opted for by the assessee. The confusion arose due to the amalgamation of entities and separate litigations. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the appeal was restored for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee's main assessment appeal (ITA No. 200/2025) is still pending and sub-judice before the ITAT. Therefore, it remitted the penalty appeal back to the Assessing Officer with a direction to refrain from proceeding with the penalty order until the final disposal of the assessment appeal.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged its initial burden under Section 68 by providing sufficient evidence regarding the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share transactions. Citing various judicial precedents, including High Courts and the Supreme Court, the Tribunal ruled that mere non-appearance of directors or alleged missing documents could not be the sole basis for addition when adequate documentary evidence was provided, and the Assessing Officer failed to conduct independent inquiries or identify specific discrepancies. The Tribunal noted that the assessee company itself was one of the share subscribers, and directed the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It ruled that the issue of bad and doubtful debts, having already been examined by the AO, could not be the subject of Section 263 proceedings. However, the issues of depreciation and foreign currency fluctuation were remanded back to the PCIT for fresh consideration after granting the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal observed that once the quantum matter is settled under the DTVSVS-2024 scheme, Section 93 of the scheme explicitly states that no penalty shall be imposed in respect of such an addition. Consequently, the impugned penalty of Rs. 1,56,877/- was ordered to be deleted.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that the filing of Form 10B is a procedural and directory requirement, not mandatory, and that delays in its submission are condonable. Relying on established judicial precedents and relevant circulars, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and the AO-CPC, remitting the case back to the AO for fresh consideration, emphasizing that the audit report was available during the processing of the return.
The Tribunal, upon hearing the submissions, noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had confirmed the AO's order due to the assessee's non-compliance and failure to produce evidence. However, considering the submission of the Ld. A.R. and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal was inclined to remit all four appeals back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The direction was to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity to the assessee to present their case. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. No specific issue was left undecided, as the primary decision was to grant a fresh opportunity.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(E) and restored the appeal for fresh consideration. The assessee will be given a further opportunity to submit all relevant documents pertaining to its registration before the Ld. CIT(E).
The assessee argued that it is part of a trust (Bandel Auxilium Educational Society, PAN AAATB8373R) and its transactions were accounted for under that PAN, thus negating the need for a separate ITR. Admitting to having two PANs and being assessed on one, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the AO. The AO is directed to provide an opportunity for the assessee to explain the circumstances of having two different PANs and then pass a fresh order as per law.
The Tribunal condoned the 332-day delay in filing the appeal due to the medical reasons provided. Recognizing the lack of proper representation at lower stages, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the entire appeal back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, ensuring the assessee is given a full opportunity to present her case and evidence.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not gone into the merit of the case and, in the interest of substantive justice, remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), acknowledging the principle of substantive justice. The ITAT remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, setting aside the previous impugned order.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the CIT(A) had properly considered all evidence, including the repayment of the loan through bank accounts during the relevant assessment year. Since the revenue could not dislodge the factual findings of the CIT(A), the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal as the tax effect (₹40,571/-) was below the monetary limit of ₹60,00,000/- set by CBDT Circular No. 9 of 2024 for filing appeals, and the case did not fall under any of the specified exceptions. It was noted that the constitutional validity of the provisions was not challenged, and the issue was settled by the Apex Court.
The Tribunal, upon hearing the submissions, noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had confirmed the AO's order due to the assessee's non-compliance and failure to produce evidence. However, considering the submission of the Ld. A.R. and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal was inclined to remit all four appeals back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The direction was to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity to the assessee to present their case. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. No specific issue was left undecided, as the primary decision was to grant a fresh opportunity.
The ITAT, considering the assessee's affidavit and various Supreme Court precedents on condonation of delay (including Section 5 of the Limitation Act principles), found the explanation for the delay to be reasonable and bona fide. The delay was condoned, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal held that the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act was liable to be quashed because the Revenue failed to issue a mandatory show cause notice before making adjustments, as required by the proviso to Section 143(1).
The Tribunal held that when a return is furnished under Section 153A, it takes the place of the return filed under Section 139. The AO accepted the return filed under Section 153A, and therefore, for all purposes, including the allowability of brought forward losses, the return filed under Section 153A is the one to be looked at. The Tribunal referred to the Gujarat High Court's decision in Kirti Dahyabhai Patel vs. ACIT, which held that the return filed under Section 153A is to be considered as a return filed under Section 139. Furthermore, the Tribunal considered the Madras High Court's decision in Kanaka Films Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO and the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Manmohan Das, which established that if a loss is determined, the Income-tax Officer is duty-bound to carry forward and set off the loss of earlier years in subsequent years. Therefore, the Tribunal found substance in the assessee's argument that the brought forward loss was mandatorily allowable. The appeal of the assessee was allowed, and the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) ruled that the filing of Form 10B is a procedural and directory requirement, not mandatory, and that delays in its submission are condonable. Relying on established judicial precedents and relevant circulars, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and the AO-CPC, remitting the case back to the AO for fresh consideration, emphasizing that the audit report was available during the processing of the return.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(E) denied registration citing non-compliance and a procedural error, despite the trust being an old entity with existing registrations. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and remanded the matter, instructing the CIT(E) to provide the assessee a fresh opportunity for a hearing and to present necessary submissions for proving its genuineness and exemption claim.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) appeared to have considered new documents not presented to the AO. To ensure substantive justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, upon hearing the submissions, noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had confirmed the AO's order due to the assessee's non-compliance and failure to produce evidence. However, considering the submission of the Ld. A.R. and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal was inclined to remit all four appeals back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The direction was to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity to the assessee to present their case. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. No specific issue was left undecided, as the primary decision was to grant a fresh opportunity.
The ITAT, considering the non-compliance but in the interest of justice, restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh readjudication. The assessee was to be provided an adequate opportunity of being heard and was directed to cooperate positively in the proceedings.
The Tribunal, upon hearing the submissions, noted that the Ld. CIT(A) had confirmed the AO's order due to the assessee's non-compliance and failure to produce evidence. However, considering the submission of the Ld. A.R. and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal was inclined to remit all four appeals back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). The direction was to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity to the assessee to present their case. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. No specific issue was left undecided, as the primary decision was to grant a fresh opportunity.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions. It found that the cash sales identified in loose papers were duly recorded in the assessee's books, which the AO had accepted, and that the statements forming the basis of the additions were retracted, consistent with CBDT circulars and judicial precedents against relying solely on retracted confessions.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not properly represented before the AO and CIT(A). In the interest of justice, it set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with an opportunity to be heard and present proper evidence, allowing the AO to respond under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.
The Tribunal found that the issue of whether micro finance is a commercial activity or a charitable one could have been resolved at the CIT(E)'s level. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remanded the case back to the CIT(E) to provide the assessee an opportunity to present its case fully.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee alleged denial of adequate opportunity of hearing. While the impugned order mentioned several opportunities, the Tribunal, in the interest of substantive justice, felt it appropriate to remand the matter back to the first appellate authority. The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) was directed to provide an adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(E) denied registration citing non-compliance and a procedural error, despite the trust being an old entity with existing registrations. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s orders and remanded the matter, instructing the CIT(E) to provide the assessee a fresh opportunity for a hearing and to present necessary submissions for proving its genuineness and exemption claim.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 330 days, stating that the assessee was prevented from filing the appeal within the stipulated time due to their medical condition. The matter was remitted back to the ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) for fresh disposal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 360 days, finding sufficient cause. It remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits, emphasizing the principle of natural justice and cautioning the assessee to cooperate with future proceedings.
The ITAT condoned the 852-day delay, finding that the assessee was prevented from filing the appeal within the stipulated time. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) with a direction to dispose of the appeal on merits, providing one more opportunity to the assessee in the interest of natural justice.
The Tribunal held that to ensure the principle of natural justice, it was a fit case to provide one more opportunity to the assessee. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for disposal on merits.
The ITAT condoned the 1091-day delay, deeming it necessary for natural justice to allow the case to be heard on its merits. The matter was remitted back to the Addl./JCIT(Appeals) to dispose of the appeal without prejudice, with a direction for the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal condoned the 20-day delay in filing the appeal, recognizing that the assessee was prevented from filing it within the stipulated time. To ensure natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for a fresh decision on merits, without being influenced by previous observations, with a caution for the assessee to cooperate promptly.
The CIT(Appeals) deleted the addition, reasoning that Section 56(2)(x) did not apply as the assessee, a developer, did not own the property, and had submitted joint development agreements. The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, noting that the CIT(A) deleted the addition without a remand report or sufficient reason based on documents produced for the first time during appeal. The assessee's Cross Objection was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal granted the permission sought by the assessee's counsel to withdraw the appeal, as the Departmental Representative had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal noted that at both the assessment stage before the AO and the appellate stage before the CIT(A), the assessee failed to make proper representation. The CIT(A) had passed an ex parte order because the assessee did not comply with hearing notices and did not produce documents. The Tribunal found that the disallowances were made by the AO due to a lack of adequate evidence, and the appeal was decided ex parte due to non-prosecution by the assessee. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to provide another opportunity to the assessee to represent its case properly. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision. The CIT(A) was directed to allow an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and also to grant an opportunity to the AO to represent the case as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, if required, and then pass an order in accordance with law. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes, with a caution to the assessee against seeking unnecessary adjournments.
The ITAT condoned the 109-day delay, finding sufficient cause. To ensure natural justice, the Tribunal remitted the case back to the CIT(Appeals) to decide the appeal on merits, cautioning the assessee to cooperate.
The Tribunal, considering the principle of natural justice, remitted the matter back to the ld. CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication on merits, setting aside the earlier ex-parte dismissal. It also cautioned the assessee to promptly cooperate with future proceedings.
The Tribunal, after considering the submissions and in the interest of justice and fair play, deemed it appropriate to afford one more opportunity to the assessee. The Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The reasoning was that the assessee claimed that the CIT(A) order was ex-parte due to communication issues with their email address, and they had sufficient evidence for their claim. The Tribunal directed that a proper opportunity of being heard should be provided to the assessee, and the assessee should not seek adjournments unless for a reasonable cause. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes. The specific disallowance amount and the applicability of section 13(3) and section 11 were not adjudicated on merits by the Tribunal in this order.
The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown. The assessee's counsel argued that the delay should be condoned and the matter remanded for a decision on merits.
The ITAT condoned the 166-day delay, acknowledging the assessee's reasons (demise of advocate, medical issues). To ensure natural justice, the ITAT set aside the Ld. CIT(Appeals)'s ex-parte dismissal and remitted the case back to the Ld. CIT(Appeals) to grant the assessee another opportunity of hearing, with a caution for the assessee to cooperate.