Loading ITAT cases…
284 orders · Page 2 of 6
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) erred in rejecting the application solely on technical grounds of delay without considering the charitable nature of the institution. The matter was remanded to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the entire transaction was through verifiable channels, supported by demat and bank statements, and the acquisition of shares was consistently reflected in the assessee's balance sheets. The CIT(A) had deleted the addition, and the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 270A failed to specify whether the penalty was for 'under-reporting of income' or 'misreporting of income', making it void ab initio. Therefore, the penalty imposed was quashed.
The Tribunal condoned the 19-day delay in filing the first appeal, considering the reasons provided as potentially sufficient. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 93 days, citing the COVID-19 pandemic as a sufficient cause. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal afresh on its merits.
The tribunal held that an order passed against a dead person is a nullity. Consequently, the impugned order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 143(2) was by a non-jurisdictional officer, rendering the subsequent assessment invalid. The assessment was quashed based on this procedural irregularity.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The Senior Departmental Representative did not object to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be non-speaking and lacking proper consideration of the assessee's submissions and evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the appeal back for a fresh, speaking adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form No. 10AB was a procedural delay and not a valid ground for rejecting the application. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) to condone the delay and pass a fresh order.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had indeed produced a registration certificate dated September 6, 2018, prior to the stipulated date. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for re-examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. In the interest of justice, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to present documents.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the set aside proceedings and was granted an adequate opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that since the information originated from a search action on another person, proceedings should have been initiated under Section 153C, not Section 147. The reopening and consequent assessment were deemed null and void.
The Tribunal found that the AO relied on entry operators' statements without independent verification and that the assessee had provided substantial evidence, including loan repayments. The Tribunal set aside the addition, directing the AO to delete it.
The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal, holding that the payments were not for original acquisition of mining rights but for the extension of an existing lease, thus not capital in nature.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Exemptions)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. The assessee was granted an opportunity to justify its application and the CIT(Exemptions) was directed to decide the application afresh after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without deciding the issues on merits, violating Section 250(6). Therefore, the appeal was restored to the AO for a decision on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without deciding the issues on merit, violating Section 250(6). Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the re-opening of the assessment was invalid because the reasons recorded by the AO did not indicate any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts fully and truly, which is a prerequisite for re-opening beyond four years after an assessment under Section 143(3).
The Tribunal held that the notice issued by the ITO was without jurisdiction as it violated CBDT Instruction No.1/2011 regarding pecuniary limits. Consequently, the assessment framed by the AO was quashed as invalid.
The Tribunal found that the case was decided ex-parte by both lower authorities without deciding on merits, violating Section 250(6). In the interest of justice, the appeal was restored to the AO for a decision on merits after providing a hearing opportunity.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence, including bank statements and audited accounts of the subscribers, demonstrating the genuineness of the share transactions. The AO's and CIT(A)'s conclusions were based on surmises and conjectures, not on the evidence presented.
The Tribunal found that there was no actual delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to incorrect dates mentioned. The Tribunal held that the income of the educational institution is exempt under Section 10(23C) of the Act, as consistently accepted by the department in other years.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made merely on suspicion when the assessee has provided substantial evidence of purchases that were consumed in production and sold. The Tribunal also quashed a revisionary order passed by the PCIT as infructuous because the underlying issue had already been decided.
The Tribunal held that additions cannot be made merely on suspicion when the assessee has provided substantial evidence of purchases that were consumed in production and sold. The Tribunal also quashed a revisionary order passed by the PCIT as infructuous because the underlying issue had already been decided.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid as it was issued in the name of a non-existent entity. Consequently, the assessment proceedings based on this invalid notice were also deemed bad in law and a nullity.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 was invalid as it was issued in the name of a non-existent entity. Consequently, the assessment proceedings based on this invalid notice were also deemed bad in law and a nullity.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) who had quashed the reassessment proceedings on the grounds of 'borrowed satisfaction' by the AO. The CIT(A) also found the addition unsustainable on merits, as the transactions were supported by audited financial statements and other evidence.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had not sufficiently discharged its onus to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the share transactions. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case back to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the assessee borrowed money and utilized it for business purposes, including investments in foreign assets and advancing funds as a measure of commercial expediency to related parties and directors. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had a history of investing in foreign assets since FY 2011-12 using unsecured loans, transferring funds to a Singapore bank account. It was also observed that loans advanced to group companies and directors were for business purposes, citing specific instances like advances to M/s Mani’s Ranisati Finvest Ltd., Samudra Vyapar Pvt. Ltd., and Chowringhe Residency Pvt. Ltd., and the refund of a loan to Tanishque Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal found that the utilization of funds was driven by commercial expediency and business considerations. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Sharp Business System vs. CIT, which held that advances to sister concerns and directors are covered by the principle of commercial expediency, the Tribunal disagreed with the CIT(A)'s conclusion. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to delete the addition.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to ₹53,221/- as the assessee's own funds exceeded investments. For the rental income issue, the Tribunal held that lease rent paid is an admissible deduction when computing the annual value of the property as income from house property.
The Tribunal held that the non-issuance of notice under Section 143(2) is a jurisdictional defect, not a curable one, rendering the assessment invalid. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that non-filing of Form-68 for immunity under Section 270AA is a technical breach and does not disentitle the assessee from claiming immunity if substantive conditions are met. Therefore, the penalty levied under Section 270A should be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form No. 10AB was a procedural delay and not a valid ground for rejecting the application. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) to condone the delay and pass a fresh order.
The Tribunal held that the addition based solely on 'insight portal' information without corroborative evidence is incorrect. The AO wrongly framed the assessment under Section 144 instead of Section 143(3). The CIT(A) also erred in restoring the issue to the AO without proper legal grounds.
The tribunal held that transfer pricing adjustments for ITSS and marketing support services should be deleted, following the rule of consistency and previous favorable decisions. The issues of late ESI deposit and set-off of brought forward losses were restored to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and, for the interest of justice, remitted the appeal back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessee was directed to cooperate in the remand proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the belated filing of Form 10B is a technical and procedural breach and should not lead to the denial of exemption. The exemption was allowed as claimed by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were vague and scanty, lacking specific details of transactions. Following a coordinate bench decision, the Tribunal quashed the reopening and subsequent assessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), set aside the CIT(A)'s order, and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for reassessment.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing Supreme Court judgments emphasizing liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' to advance substantial justice. The orders of the lower authorities were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence regarding the genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity of the loan creditors, and that the loans had been repaid. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the penalty notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) was bad in law because it failed to specify whether the penalty was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. Consequently, the penalty notices and subsequent proceedings were quashed.
The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. However, it found that the CIT(A) erred by admitting additional evidence without restoring the issue to the AO, thus violating Rule 46A.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of genuine share transactions through registered brokers and banking channels. The Tribunal noted that the scrip was not on the list of penny stocks and that the revenue had not conducted independent inquiries to prove the transactions were bogus.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of registration under Section 12AB of the Act, and this benefit is available for the assessment years under appeal. Consequently, the income of the trust is fully exempt.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of registration under Section 12AB of the Act, and this benefit is available for the assessment years under appeal. Consequently, the income of the trust is fully exempt.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of registration under Section 12AB of the Act, and this benefit is available for the assessment years under appeal. Consequently, the income of the trust is fully exempt.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidence regarding the genuineness, creditworthiness, and identity of the loan creditors, and that the loans had been repaid. Therefore, the additions made by the AO were not sustainable.