Loading ITAT cases…
412 orders · Page 9 of 9
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not decided the issue on merit, citing non-compliance by the appellant. The Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the Assessing Officer (AO) to consider it on its merits after reviewing the details provided by the appellant. The appellant was also directed to provide necessary details to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) did not consider all the details submitted by the assessee and failed to consider the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of ACIT(E) Vs. Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority regarding charitable activities. Therefore, the issue was remanded back to the CIT(E) for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as it was based on a 'change of opinion' and borrowed satisfaction without independent inquiry. The assessee had discharged its onus by providing all necessary documents, and the revenue authorities failed to bring any contrary evidence.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest income earned from deposits with co-operative banks. The issue of deductions under Section 80P(2)(a) and 80P(2)(c) was remitted back to the AO for fresh examination.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were bad in law. The reasons recorded for reopening were based on an estimate of commission income of 1% of total transactions, but no such addition was made. Furthermore, the reasons for reopening were supplied to the assessee only two days before the notice under Section 142(1) & 143(2), failing to comply with mandatory requirements.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing the trustee's ill health and lack of familiarity with digital processes. The matter was restored to the CIT (Exemptions) for reconsideration on merits, with a direction to provide the assessee with a proper opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal noted that notices were sent only through the ITBA portal, despite the assessee providing email IDs. The assessee was also negligent in not checking the ITBA portal. However, the CIT(A) should have used the provided email IDs for better communication. Therefore, the matter is restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing with proper opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that the issue involved short-grant of TDS credit due to TDS mismatch in Form 26AS and charging of interest under Sections 234B and 234C. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the AO for verification of details and correct TDS credit grant.
The tribunal noted that the assessee did not respond to multiple notices from the CIT(A), and some received documents were corrupt. Due to procedural issues and lack of proper hearing, the tribunal decided to restore the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.
The Tribunal noted that the rental income was offered to tax in AY 2015-16 on a receipt basis after the dispute was settled. Since the income was already taxed in a subsequent year, it should not be taxed again in AY 2013-14 and 2014-15.
The Tribunal noted that the rental income was offered to tax in AY 2015-16 on a receipt basis after the dispute was settled. Since the income was already taxed in a subsequent year, it should not be taxed again in AY 2013-14 and 2014-15.
The Tribunal noted that the transactions were supported by contract notes, D-mat statements, and bank statements, indicating genuine transactions. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court and High Court judgments emphasizing that suspicion cannot replace evidence and the onus is on the revenue to prove transactions are sham. The Tribunal found that the assessee had successfully established the genuineness of the long-term capital gain.