Loading ITAT cases…
986 orders · Page 10 of 20
The Tribunal held that the assessee had discharged their primary onus by providing evidence of share purchase through banking channels, dematerialized shares, sale through a registered broker, and payment of STT. The lower authorities failed to bring any specific adverse evidence against the assessee or their broker regarding price manipulation.
The Tribunal held that rejection of a Section 12AB application should not be based solely on procedural defaults without examining the trust's objects and activities. It emphasized the need for adherence to natural justice principles.
The Tribunal held that the addition was unsustainable as it was based solely on third-party information without independent corroboration, similar to previous rulings. The AO failed to establish a direct nexus between the seized material and the assessee or prove the actual payment of on-money.
The Tribunal held that the source of cash withdrawals was explained and established. The revenue failed to prove that the cash deposits were from an undisclosed source or that the withdrawn cash was utilized elsewhere. Therefore, the addition was deleted.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on merits after providing a due and effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the TPO disregarded the TNMM without bringing on record comparable uncontrolled transactions as mandated by law. The adjustment suggested by the TPO and confirmed by the DRP was found to be arbitrary and ad-hoc, lacking justification.
The ITAT, in the interest of substantial justice, restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 2,500/- for the delay.
The Tribunal held that the transaction was a genuine intraday trade resulting in a loss, not an accommodation entry. The addition was made solely on the basis of the scrip being in an investigation report without independent evidence linking the assessee.
The Tribunal deleted the addition made under Section 69A. The addition for income from other sources was restored to the AO for fresh examination. The appeals for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 were allowed following the decision for AY 2013-14.
The Tribunal deleted the addition made under Section 69A. The addition for income from other sources was restored to the AO for fresh examination. The appeals for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 were allowed following the decision for AY 2013-14.
The Tribunal, in relation to the non-compete fee, found that the AO and CIT(A) had not properly examined the genuineness and necessity of the payment. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from short-term deposits, when not immediately required for lending to members, is attributable to its business of providing credit facilities. Therefore, such income is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for writing off 25% of the outstanding amount from NSEL as 'bad debt' was in order, as it is sufficient if the debt is written off as irrecoverable in the accounts. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and vacated the disallowance.
The Tribunal held that the expression 'sufficient cause' should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice, especially in the context of a new faceless regime. The delay was condoned, and the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, following its own precedent and High Court decisions, held that the estate should be taxed at normal slab rates and not at the Maximum Marginal Rate. The assessment status as an AOP was considered for statistical purposes only, with the rate of taxation to be as per normal slab rates.
The Tribunal deleted the addition made under Section 69A. The addition for income from other sources was restored to the AO for fresh examination. The appeals for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17 were allowed following the decision for AY 2013-14.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order lacked a detailed adjudication and did not comply with the statutory obligation to pass a speaking order. Therefore, the matter was set aside for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the quantum appeals due to substantial and unexplained delays, noting the casual approach in filing condonation petitions. However, the penalty appeals were allowed as the notices issued under section 271(1)(c) were found to be omnibus and lacked specificity, thus vitiating the penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on Nostro accounts and placements with its head office and overseas branches is not taxable as it is a transaction with itself, governed by the principle of mutuality. However, the taxability of interest from other overseas banks was also discussed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to TDS credit even if the deductor failed to deposit the tax or if the TDS is reflected in a dissolved AOP's PAN, provided the corresponding income has been offered to tax by the assessee. The denial of credit based solely on Form 26AS or the deductor's default is contrary to law.
The tribunal rejected the assessee's request for adjournment. The appeal was treated as dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to revive if the Vivad se Vishwas settlement could not be materialized.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the application for regularization was not deliberate and the assessee had a bonafide belief. The Tribunal also noted the recent amendment allowing the CIT(E) to condone delays. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the expression 'sufficient cause' for condoning delay should be interpreted liberally to advance substantial justice. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine without considering this principle.
The Tribunal found that the assessee's delay in filing the application and subsequent non-compliance were due to miscommunication and the advanced age of its trustees. Therefore, the case was remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the application for regularization was not deliberate and the assessee had a bonafide belief. The Tribunal also noted the recent amendment allowing the CIT(E) to condone delays. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the principles of natural justice were violated as the assessee was denied a meaningful opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the grievance raised in the appeal no longer survived as the registration and approval were granted. Therefore, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal noted that the grievance raised in the appeal no longer survived as the registration and approval were granted. Therefore, the Tribunal permitted the withdrawal of the appeal.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on merits after providing the assessee with an effective opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte orders of the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. This was done to provide the assessee with an effective opportunity of hearing and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
The Tribunal found that the delay in filing the application and non-compliance were due to miscommunication and the advanced age of the trustees. Considering these peculiar circumstances and the recent introduction of new provisions, the case was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the rejection was purely procedural and that the assessee should have been granted an opportunity to rectify the technical defect. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal observed that the authorities below did not doubt the documents submitted by the assessee, who had transacted in shares about 12 years prior and still held remaining shares. Therefore, the genuineness of the shareholding and the sale of shares could not be doubted.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte orders of the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. This was done to provide the assessee with an effective opportunity of hearing and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as the issue of registration had been resolved by the grant of exemption. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals as the issue of registration had been resolved by the grant of exemption. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte orders of the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. This was done to provide the assessee with an effective opportunity of hearing and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte orders of the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment. This was done to provide the assessee with an effective opportunity of hearing and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to bona fide reasons and the assessee's continuous pursuit of alternate remedies. The Tribunal then adjudicated the issue on merits and directed the Assessing Officer to allow the exemption under section 11.
The Tribunal held that a bona fide clerical error in selecting an incorrect provision while filing an online application should not be a ground to deny a statutory claim, especially when the mistake is curable. The limitations of the departmental software cannot override substantive rights. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The tribunal held that a bona fide clerical error in selecting an incorrect provision while filing an online application cannot be a ground to deny a statutory claim, especially when the mistake is curable. The limitations of the departmental software should not override substantive rights.
The Tribunal dismissed the quantum appeals due to substantial and unexplained delays, noting the casual approach in filing condonation petitions. However, the penalty appeals were allowed as the notices issued under section 271(1)(c) were found to be omnibus and lacked specificity, thus vitiating the penalty proceedings.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(Exemption) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to be given an opportunity to submit its reply online and to cooperate in the proceedings.
The tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on merits after providing an effective opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the current appeal was a duplicate of an already disposed appeal. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn and infructuous.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) with a direction to consider the assessee's application for condonation of delay and decide the appeal on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal explicitly stated no opinion was expressed on the merits of the addition.
The Tribunal noted that additional documents were produced by the assessee which were not examined by the lower authorities. Therefore, to ensure substantial justice, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination of the evidence.
The tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to present its case with the newly available evidence. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the issue of 12A/12AB registration was already set aside and restored to the CIT(E) in the assessee's own case. Therefore, the 80G application also needs fresh adjudication by the CIT(E) after the 12A/12AB issue is decided.