Loading ITAT cases…
119 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal found no material to interfere with the lower authorities' orders, stating their view was in accordance with law.
The Tribunal held that issuing a notice under section 143(2) is mandatory when the Assessing Officer intends to disturb the income returned by the assessee. The absence of such a notice renders the assessment proceedings invalid.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 143(1)(a)(v) allowing disallowance of Chapter VI-A deductions was effective from AY 2021-22 and thus not applicable to AY 2019-20. Therefore, the disallowance made by the CPC was not permissible.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable because it was signed and verified by an incompetent person. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without going into the merits of the case or the delay condonation application.
The Tribunal held that losses incurred by the spouse from derivative transactions using gifted money from the assessee are eligible for clubbing under Section 64(1)(iv) read with Explanation 3(i). However, the exact quantum of losses to be set off requires verification.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as the assessee failed to appear and did not provide any material to distinguish its case from the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Totgar's Cooperative Sale Society Ltd. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had also relied on this precedent.
The Tribunal noted that similar appeals filed before the ITAT Dehradun Bench for the same orders had been remanded back to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh consideration. Consequently, the assessee sought to withdraw the present appeals as the relief sought had already been granted.
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the lower authorities, finding that the assessee failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the loan and expenses. The appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal agreed that the CIT(A) orders were not speaking orders and were passed summarily. Consequently, the matters were restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that there was no request to withdraw the appeal and that the CIT(A)'s order was incorrect. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that a claim for exemption under Section 11 cannot be allowed through rectification proceedings when it was not made in the original or revised return. Furthermore, the application for rectification was filed beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under Section 154(7).
The Tribunal agreed that the CIT(A) orders were not speaking orders and were passed summarily. Consequently, the matters were restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal agreed that the CIT(A) orders were not speaking orders and were passed summarily. Consequently, the matters were restored back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal restored the issues in dispute regarding additions made in the assessment order back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a fresh order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive a reasonable opportunity during penalty proceedings and that the CIT(A) had summarily rejected explanations. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo order.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive a reasonable opportunity during penalty proceedings and that the CIT(A) had summarily rejected explanations. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo order.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive a reasonable opportunity during penalty proceedings and that the CIT(A) had summarily rejected explanations. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo order.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and that the original assessment and penalty orders were passed without providing reasonable opportunities. Consequently, the impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficient cause for the delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A) and that the original assessment and penalty orders were passed without providing reasonable opportunities. Consequently, the impugned orders of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as the assessee failed to appear and did not provide any material to distinguish its case from the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Totgar's Cooperative Sale Society Ltd. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had also relied on this precedent.
The Tribunal restored the issues in dispute back to the file of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to pass a fresh appellate order after providing a reasonable opportunity to both the assessee and the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed the order summarily without properly disposing of the grounds of appeal and that the assessee did not receive a reasonable opportunity. Therefore, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo appellate order.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. This was done to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to present their case and for the AO to pass a de novo order.
The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant credit for prepaid taxes after due verification. The appeal was disposed of in accordance with these directions.
The Tribunal restored the issues in dispute regarding the additions back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass a denovo order after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that there was no request to withdraw the appeal and that the CIT(A)'s order was incorrect. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that there was a clear nexus between the interest paid on employee contributions and the interest earned from investing the provident fund corpus. Therefore, the deduction under Section 57(iii) for interest paid was allowable.
The Tribunal, while noting that none appeared for the assessee, rejected an adjournment application and proceeded to hear the appeal. The Departmental Representative relied on the lower authorities' orders. The Tribunal observed that the AO noted the assessee's failure to furnish supporting documents for cash deposits, and the NFAC also noted the absence of uploaded documents. Despite the assessee's absence and the findings of the lower authorities, the Tribunal decided to grant the assessee one last opportunity to present their case. The file was restored to the Assessing Officer with a direction to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present necessary evidences and documents. The assessee was cautioned to fully comply with the AO's directions in the set-aside proceedings, failing which the AO would be at liberty to pass an ex-parte order based on available material. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the issuance of a notice under section 143(2) is mandatory, especially when the AO intends to disturb the income disclosed in the return. Failure to issue this notice renders the assessment proceedings invalid.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's case was distinguishable from the cited precedent due to representations made by the assessee and her husband. The additional evidence was admitted, and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment.
The Tribunal found no material to support the diversion of interest-bearing funds for the loan and no rational basis for the 12% interest rate used. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable due to the unrectified defects and being barred by limitation. The assessee was granted liberty to approach the ITAT again if sufficient cause for the delay and defects is shown.
The Tribunal held that the CBDT's notification enhancing the exemption limit for leave encashment to Rs. 25 lakhs is a beneficial amendment applicable to pending proceedings. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for the enhanced exemption.
The Tribunal found plausible reasons for the assessee's non-compliance, attributing it to the non-receipt of electronically issued notices due to outdated contact information and the assessee's infrequent email checking habits. Consequently, the penalty was deleted.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for a denovo assessment. This was done to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to pass a fresh appellate order in accordance with law.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the order ex parte without considering the assessee's legal arguments regarding imprest payments. It was also noted that Section 159 of the Income Tax Act needs consideration as the penalty is levied on a legal heir for a deceased assessee's alleged contravention.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine. It held that the reasons for delay were sufficient and that the CIT(A) should have considered the submissions regarding the property investment being made by the assessee's husband.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. This was primarily due to the appeal being defective, filed beyond the prescribed time limit, and the assessee failing to remove the defects or provide a sufficient cause for the delay and non-appearance.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh appellate order. This was done to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard, as requested by the assessee's representative.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as defective and barred by limitation. It clarified that the assessee could approach for restoration if defects were removed and sufficient cause for delay and non-appearance was shown.
The Tribunal found that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) had determined whether the cash payments were saved by the provisions of Rule 6DD. Therefore, the impugned appellate order was set aside.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned appellate order and restored the issue of TDS credit back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification. The Assessing Officer was directed to pass an appropriate order after due verification and providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as defective and barred by limitation. It clarified that the assessee could approach for restoration if defects were removed and sufficient cause for delay and non-appearance was shown.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication. This was done to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard during the appellate proceedings.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for a de novo assessment. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a fresh order after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal, while dealing with the appeals for Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2020-21, noted that the issue of deduction under Section 80P concerning interest earned by co-operative societies on investments, particularly those statutorily required to be kept in bank deposits or government securities, had been a subject of judicial scrutiny. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Cooperative and other High Court and ITAT judgments which held that interest earned by a Co-operative Society on deposits, which are statutorily required to be kept, are attributable to the business of an assessee. However, the Tribunal found that the figures regarding interest attributable to statutory reserves and the examination of the assessee's bye-laws required further scrutiny by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Tribunal remitted the issue of deduction under Section 80P for readjudication by the Assessing Officer. The AO, after remand, accepted the principle that interest income arising from investments in statutory reserve funds and other funds as per Sections 58 and 59 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act is "attributable" to the main activities of the Society. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the grounds of appeal related to the eligibility for deduction under Section 80P and restored the matter to the AO for re-computing the admissible deduction with reference to interest earned on investments made in accordance with the relevant provisions of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act and Rules. The issue of penalty proceedings under Section 270A was not discussed in the provided excerpt.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for a de novo assessment. This was to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity to establish that its case is distinguishable from the Totgar's case.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's challenge to the reassessment proceedings due to the absence of a Section 143(2) notice was rejected, the matter should be restored to the AO for fresh assessment. This is to allow the assessee an opportunity to substantiate the source of bank deposits with evidence.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was not in the prescribed format as per CBDT instructions, rendering it invalid. Consequently, the assessment proceedings were quashed.
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act was not in the prescribed format as per CBDT instructions, making it invalid and without jurisdiction. Consequently, the assessment proceedings were quashed.