Loading ITAT cases…
27 orders · Page 1 of 1
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. The stay application filed by the assessee was dismissed as infructuous.
The Tribunal held that although the information was not initially in the prescribed format and lacked a CD, it was furnished within the stipulated time. Therefore, the penalty imposed was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemptions) erred in rejecting the application as the assessee had provided a complete reply and evidence of proposed charitable activities. The Tribunal also noted that the objects of the trust were charitable in nature and that actual commencement of activities is not a prerequisite for registration.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, stating it was non-speaking and lacked cogent reasons. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the shares of CCL International Ltd. were genuine and not a penny stock, following a precedent from the Delhi Tribunal. The additions made by the Assessing Officer were therefore not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that once registration under Section 12A is granted, registration under Section 80G cannot be denied solely on the basis of perceived misalignment of activities, especially when the CIT(E) has not doubted the genuineness of the activities. The Tribunal relied on judicial precedents stating that the CIT(E) should grant 80G registration if the assessee holds 12A registration and its objects are charitable.
The Tribunal found that the assessee claimed to have addressed all objections and submitted a revised trust deed. It was also argued that insufficient opportunity was provided to the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Exemption) for re-adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given a proper and sufficient opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the order of the CIT (Exemption) was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that TCS under Section 206C is applicable only if the scrap is obtained during the course of manufacturing. Since the assessee's primary business was trading and only a small portion of scrap was generated from manufacturing, TCS was not applicable to the trading sales.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, stating it was non-speaking and lacked cogent reasons. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, stating it was non-speaking and lacked cogent reasons. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, stating it was non-speaking and lacked cogent reasons. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, stating it was non-speaking and lacked cogent reasons. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, stating it was non-speaking and lacked cogent reasons. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order, stating it was non-speaking and lacked cogent reasons. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's application to withdraw the appeal under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Departmental Representative had no objection. Therefore, the Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal.
The ITAT held that non-commencement of activities cannot be the sole ground for rejecting a Section 12A application. However, it found that the assessee had not furnished complete information as promised. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) to reconsider the application afresh after obtaining the complete information and affording a fresh opportunity of being heard.