Loading ITAT cases…
986 orders · Page 4 of 20
The Tribunal held that the applications were not rejected on merits regarding the trust's objects or activities, but due to non-compliance with documentation requirements. In the interest of substantial justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemptions) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with another opportunity to submit documents.
The Tribunal held that procedural rules should advance justice and disputes should be adjudicated on merits. Given the explanation for non-compliance and the nature of the dispute, the assessee was granted one effective opportunity for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that for a deduction under Section 35(1)(ii) to be valid, the recipient institution must have the specific approval from the prescribed authority. Since the society lacked this approval, the deduction claimed by the assessee was rightly disallowed.
The Tribunal held that Section 115BBG, introduced by the Finance Bill, 2017, is effective from AY 2018-19 and thus not applicable to the impugned AY 2016-17. Furthermore, the sale of carbon credits was held to be a capital receipt, consistent with High Court decisions.
The tribunal held that the rejection of the applications based on a curable procedural defect was unsustainable. The CIT(E) should have allowed the assessee an opportunity to rectify the mistake and decide the applications on merits.
The Tribunal held that Section 69C is not applicable as the loans were taken in a prior year, accepted by the department, and fully repaid through banking channels. The lenders had also declared the interest income.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 420 days, finding sufficient and bona fide cause. The matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh decision after providing an adequate opportunity of hearing, subject to a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.
The Tribunal restored the issue of short grant of TDS credit and consequential interest under section 244A to the Assessing Officer for verification. It also directed the Assessing Officer to examine and allow set-off of brought forward business losses for certain assessment years.
The Tribunal held that the addition was made based on material that had been examined by coordinate benches in similar cases and found to be unreliable. Following these precedents, the Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal condoned the delay due to the peculiar circumstances and the principle of substantial justice. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal restored the issue of short grant of TDS credit and consequential interest under section 244A to the Assessing Officer for verification. It also directed the Assessing Officer to examine and allow set-off of brought forward business losses for certain assessment years.
The Tribunal restored the issue of short grant of TDS credit and consequential interest under section 244A to the Assessing Officer for verification. It also directed the Assessing Officer to examine and allow set-off of brought forward business losses for certain assessment years.
The Tribunal held that while timely filing of returns is a mandatory condition for claiming deduction under Chapter VI-A, the assessee can approach the competent authority under Section 119(2)(b) to seek condonation of delay due to genuine hardship. The Assessing Officer is directed to give effect to the order of the competent authority.
The Tribunal held that since the substantive relief sought (renewal and approval) was granted by subsequent orders, the appeals against the rejection orders were infructuous. The Tribunal also stated it could not adjudicate on the conditions imposed in the subsequent orders as they were not under appeal.
The Tribunal held that consistency should be maintained with previous years where similar issues were accepted by the Revenue. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the AO to assess the trust at the rate applicable to an individual after verification.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance under section 14A and additions under sections 41(1) and 68. However, it allowed the assessee's appeal regarding the exclusion of SEZ manufacturing profits from MAT computation, following a jurisdictional precedent.
The Tribunal held that the DDT rate cannot exceed the rate prescribed under the respective DTAA. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal directed the refund of DDT paid in excess of the rate stipulated in the DTAA.
The Tribunal held that interest received by an Indian branch from its head office or overseas branches is not taxable as it is considered a payment to self. Consequently, Section 14A is not applicable to such income.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to adopt the fair market value as on 01.04.1981 as the cost of acquisition for inherited property. The AO was not justified in treating the cost as nil without examining the valuation report.
The Tribunal held that the assessee did not have a fixed place PE or a DAPE in India, thus allowing the benefit of the DTAA. It also ruled that interest on income tax refunds should be taxed as per the DTAA rates.
The Tribunal held that the failure to issue a notice under Section 143(2) and the omission to pass a draft assessment order under Section 144C are jurisdictional defects. Consequently, the assessment orders passed were quashed as being without jurisdiction.
The Tribunal held that the failure to issue a notice under Section 143(2) and the omission to pass a draft assessment order under Section 144C are jurisdictional defects. Consequently, the assessment orders passed were quashed as being without jurisdiction.
The ITAT held that the rejection of the 80G approval was solely based on the rejected 12AB registration, which was later reinstated by previous Tribunal orders. Since the foundation for rejecting the 80G approval no longer existed, the impugned order was unsustainable.
The Tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Since the assessee has obtained the desired registration for subsequent years, the appeal against the rejection order is no longer pressed.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer relied on material collected behind the assessee's back without providing an opportunity to respond, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal also noted inconsistencies in the remand report.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and restored the matter to the CIT's file. The CIT was directed to re-examine the application on its merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity to furnish all necessary documents and information.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and, considering the principles of natural justice, remitted the matter back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. The assessee is to be given a reasonable opportunity to submit necessary documentation.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and restored the matter to the CIT's file. The CIT was directed to re-examine the application on its merits after affording the assessee an opportunity to submit all required documents and evidence.
The Tribunal held that a procedural error in citing the incorrect statutory clause should not lead to the denial of substantive registration. The CIT (Exemption) should examine the application on its merits.
The Tribunal held that additions under Section 68 were not legally sustainable as they did not represent credits in the assessee's books and the differences were explained. Similarly, the addition under Section 69C was not justified as the expenditure was for business purposes and the invoice was received later.
The Tribunal held that the lease rentals are covered by Article 8 of the India-Ireland Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and are taxable in Ireland, not India. The Tribunal also found that the MLI and PPT were not applicable.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and restored the matter to the CIT's file. The CIT was directed to examine the application afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing and considering the documents to be submitted by the assessee.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and restored the matter to the CIT's file. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to furnish all required documents and information.
The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was not sustainable, considering the consistent decisions of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case for earlier and subsequent assessment years. The CIT(A) had correctly followed these precedents.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh consideration. The CIT is directed to verify the assessee's prior registration and decide the application afresh after the assessee furnishes the required documents and is given a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn because the assessee had already secured the required registration.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without affording an effective opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT (Exemption) for a fresh decision, granting the assessee an opportunity to furnish all required documents and comply with the proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the ends of justice would be met by setting aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order and restoring the matter for fresh adjudication. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to consider the 80G application along with the pending 12A renewal application.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT (Exemption) for a fresh decision, granting the assessee an opportunity to furnish all required documents and comply with the proceedings.
The Tribunal found that the matter required fresh verification by the CIT(Exemption) in light of the documents submitted by the assessee. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for re-examination.
The Tribunal held that provisions for employee benefits, when based on actuarial valuation and arising from existing employment terms, represent ascertained liabilities. These are deductible even if payment is deferred.
The Tribunal held that the assessee acquired rights in the flat in FY 2006-07, as evidenced by the reservation letter and developer's confirmation. The date of allotment/reservation is relevant for determining the period of holding, overriding subsequent entries in books or ledger adjustments.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) should adjudicate the matter afresh. The application for Section 80G renewal should be considered along with the pending application for Section 12A renewal.
The Tribunal condoned the delay due to bona fide circumstances and set aside the CIT's order. The matter was restored to the CIT for a fresh examination of the application after granting a hearing and receiving all requisite documents from the assessee.
The Tribunal held that no penalty can be levied for under-reporting of income when the addition was made on an ad hoc estimated basis. Consequently, the penalty order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 69 of the Act were legally untenable as they were based on a retracted third-party statement without corroborative evidence. Consequently, additions for notional interest under Section 56 were also deleted.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity due to amalgamation is void ab initio. Consequently, the appellate order passed by the CIT(A) in the same name is also unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that additions made under Section 69 of the Act were legally untenable as they were based on a retracted third-party statement without corroborative evidence. Consequently, additions for notional interest under Section 56 were also deleted.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file. The CIT(A) was directed to consider the condonation application leniently and pass a reasoned order after hearing the assessee.