Loading ITAT cases…
273 orders · Page 3 of 6
The Tribunal held that the timelines prescribed for filing applications under Section 80G(5) are directory and not mandatory. Therefore, the delay in filing the application should not be a ground for rejection.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The assessee was to be granted an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication. The assessee was to be granted an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after granting an opportunity to be heard. The assessee was directed to submit all relevant details.
The Tribunal held that Section 80AC(ii) of the Act, which mandates timely filing for deductions, was introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2021 and is not applicable to the assessment year 2018-19. Therefore, the denial of Section 80P deduction in the intimation under Section 143(1) was invalid.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the AO for re-adjudication after considering the DVO's valuation report, which was received after the assessment order was passed.
The Tribunal held that the deposit was made from the available cash balance of Rs. 6,50,573.05, which was recognized by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the deposit could not be considered as income from undisclosed sources.
The Tribunal noted that the entire sale consideration was assessed in the hands of the assessee despite there being 16 co-owners. In the interest of justice, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, following a co-ordinate bench's decision in a similar case. It held that the provision for entry tax should be allowed as it was made for adjustment against advance entry tax paid by the assessee, pending the disposal of a writ petition.
The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 40A(3) were not attracted in this case, considering the genuineness of the payment and the business exigencies. The assessee was found to be a facilitator, and the payments were passed on to ticketing agencies.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment order passed by the NFAC was beyond jurisdiction as it was passed prior to the relevant notification. Following coordinate bench decisions, the appeal was allowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) without proper jurisdiction, as the notification empowering NFAC to pass such orders was issued after the date of the assessment order. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were considered bad in law.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication after granting the assessee an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted when there is no exempt income. It also found that the reopening of assessment for AY 2017-18 was barred by limitation and that club expenses incurred for commercial expediency are allowable. The issue of carryforward of business loss was restored to the AO.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was defective and time-barred, and despite multiple opportunities, the defects were not rectified. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal held that issuing the notice under Section 148 before the communication of approval under Section 151 is a serious lapse that renders the notice and subsequent assessment void. The Tribunal followed a coordinate bench's decision on similar facts.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form 10BB is procedural and directory, not mandatory. The Tribunal also noted that the expenditure should have been allowed even if exemption was denied, and that disallowing expenditure under Section 143(1) is not permissible. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that since evidence from a search on a third party was used for the assessment, the procedure under Section 153C should have been followed, not Section 147. As this procedure was not followed, the assessment order is invalid.
The Tribunal held that a deduction statutorily allowable cannot be denied merely because it could not be claimed in the original return due to the initial loss. The assessee is eligible for the deduction once its income turned positive.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the notice issued under Section 148 on April 16, 2021, was time-barred. This was based on the Supreme Court's concession that for AY 2015-16, notices issued after April 1, 2021, would be dropped.
The Tribunal found that the assessee provided evidence of being a Kacha Ahratiya and regularly made payments from receipts. The issue was restored to the AO for re-adjudication after considering the factual details and evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s dismissal of the appeal without condoning the delay and deciding on merit violated Section 250(6) of the Act. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) failed to provide details of the transactions and did not establish whether the alleged accommodation entries related to sales or purchases. The addition was deleted as the amount matched receipts from a different entity of the purchaser.
The tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted when there is no exempt income. It also found that the reopening of assessment for AY 2017-18 was barred by limitation and that club expenses incurred for commercial expediency are allowable. The issue of carryforward of business loss was restored to the AO.
The Tribunal noted the AO's error in including non-exempt income-generating investments for disallowance calculation. The matter was restored to the AO for readjudication.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 was bad in law as it was issued after the prescribed period, following Supreme Court decisions. Additionally, the assessment should have been done under Section 153C, not Section 147, when relying on materials from a search in another person's case.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate and be granted an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was invalid because it did not specify the exact charge against the assessee, thus denying them a proper opportunity to respond. Consequently, the penalty imposed based on this defective notice was also quashed.
The Tribunal held that the issue is squarely covered by a previous decision of a Coordinate Bench. Following that decision, the additions made in the hands of the assessees were deleted.
The Tribunal held that the issue is squarely covered by a previous decision of a Coordinate Bench. Following that decision, the additions made in the hands of the assessees were deleted.
The tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted when there is no exempt income. It also found that the reopening of assessment for AY 2017-18 was barred by limitation and that club expenses incurred for commercial expediency are allowable. The issue of carryforward of business loss was restored to the AO.
The tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted when there is no exempt income. It also found that the reopening of assessment for AY 2017-18 was barred by limitation and that club expenses incurred for commercial expediency are allowable. The issue of carryforward of business loss was restored to the AO.
The tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted when there is no exempt income. It also found that the reopening of assessment for AY 2017-18 was barred by limitation and that club expenses incurred for commercial expediency are allowable. The issue of carryforward of business loss was restored to the AO.
The tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted when there is no exempt income. It also found that the reopening of assessment for AY 2017-18 was barred by limitation and that club expenses incurred for commercial expediency are allowable. The issue of carryforward of business loss was restored to the AO.
The Tribunal held that since evidence from a search on a third party was used for the assessment, the procedure under Section 153C should have been followed, not Section 143(3). Consequently, the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) was quashed.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without deciding on merits, violating Section 250(6). The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing a hearing opportunity.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to bonafide reasons. The matter was restored to the AO for re-adjudication after considering all evidence and affording a proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to plausible reasons. The ex parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside and the matter was restored for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) for re-examination. The AO is directed to consider the corrected audit report and provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(Exemption) with a direction to decide the application after the appellant produces the FCRA Certificate. The appellant was also given liberty to produce supporting documents.
The tribunal held that no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted when there is no exempt income. It also found that the reopening of assessment for AY 2017-18 was barred by limitation and that club expenses incurred for commercial expediency are allowable. The issue of carryforward of business loss was restored to the AO.
The Tribunal condoned the significant delay in filing the first appeal, citing the COVID-19 situation and administrative issues as sufficient cause. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal found that both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) passed ex-parte orders and the CIT(A) did not decide all grounds of appeal. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter for de-novo assessment.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as withdrawn, noting that this withdrawal would not prevent the assessee from challenging the earlier rejection orders. The Tribunal also suggested considering the time spent on these appeals for condoning any delay in challenging subsequent orders.
The ITAT condoned the 4-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) and set aside the CIT(Appeals)'s order. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had dismissed the appeal without examining the merits and that the assessee was unable to furnish some evidence. Therefore, to ensure natural justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh examination of the documents.
The ITAT condoned the delay of 459 days, citing the principle of natural justice and the assessee's unawareness of the assessment order. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance but, considering the circumstances, granted one more opportunity by remanding the case back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The AO was given liberty to draw adverse inferences in case of further non-compliance.
The Tribunal held that the donation was made through banking channels to an organization approved under Section 35(1)(ii) at the time of donation. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in a similar case, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
The Tribunal held that the addition and penalty were based solely on a tax audit report that was not required for the assessment year in question, as per a CBDT circular. The Tribunal deleted the addition and quashed the consequential penalty.