Loading ITAT cases…
94 orders · Page 2 of 2
The tribunal held that the appellant had failed to plead and prove that they represented the estate of the deceased assessee as required by law. Therefore, the appellant's claim of being a legal representative was rejected.
The Tribunal held that the order passed under Section 201(1) & 201(1A) was time-barred as it was passed beyond the two-year limitation period prescribed under the pre-amended Section 201(3)(i) of the Act. The amendment by the Finance Act, 2014, which extended the period to seven years, was not applicable to the financial year 2012-13.
Since the additions under section 69C were deleted by the CIT(A), the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) based on those additions had no basis. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal restored the appeal back to the NFAC for fresh adjudication. The NFAC is directed to provide at least three opportunities for hearing and decide the appeal on merits.
The tribunal found that the NFAC's order did not decide the substantive grounds on merits as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.
Since the additions under section 69C were deleted by the CIT(A), the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) based on those additions had no basis. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance made by the lower authorities was correct. It relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. & Ors. vs. CIT & Ors., which settled the law in favor of the revenue on this issue.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had not provided sufficient reasons for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. Following the Supreme Court's decision in P.K. Ramachandran, the application for condonation of delay was rejected.
The Tribunal restored the appeal back to the NFAC for fresh adjudication, allowing three effective opportunities for hearing. The assessee was directed to file and prove all relevant facts.
The Tribunal restored the appeal back to the NFAC for fresh adjudication. The NFAC is directed to provide opportunities for hearing and decide the substantive grounds on merits.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC's order was not a proper adjudication on merits. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that the NFAC's order did not decide the substantive grounds on merits as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. The appeal was restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had made a genuine attempt to upload the form on the due date by sending it to the e-filing helpdesk. Therefore, the assessee should not be denied the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim of an earlier agreement to sell was not substantiated. However, it found that the AO had confirmed the addition without a DVO report, breaching principles of natural justice.
The Tribunal found that the NFAC's orders were passed without proper adjudication on merits. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merit and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution, citing a Bombay High Court judgment. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the NFAC's orders were passed without proper adjudication on merits. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to file and prove all relevant facts in the consequential proceedings.
The tribunal held that the assessees were entitled to the exemptions as their services, originally with the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, were vested in the State Government and subsequently transferred to new entities under the Electricity Act, 2003. This vesting and transfer protected their service conditions, making them eligible for the exemptions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution, as per the Bombay High Court's ruling. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that the assessees were entitled to the exemptions as their services, originally with the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, were vested in the State Government and subsequently transferred to new entities under the Electricity Act, 2003. This vesting and transfer protected their service conditions, making them eligible for the exemptions.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's claim for deductions was sought after the processing of the return and post-facto intimation. Such claims require factual verification and are not apparent mistakes rectifiable under section 154.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to file and prove all relevant facts in the consequential proceedings.
The tribunal held that the assessees were entitled to the exemptions as their services, originally with the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, were vested in the State Government and subsequently transferred to new entities under the Electricity Act, 2003. This vesting and transfer protected their service conditions, making them eligible for the exemptions.
The Tribunal held that the reason provided by the assessee for the delay in filing the audit report was not sufficient. It reasoned that busy schedules of directors, whether in government or private companies, do not excuse non-adherence to statutory time limits.
The Tribunal held that the issue of not granting tax relief under Section 90 was not an apparent mistake rectifiable under Section 154. Such matters require detailed inquiry and should be pursued through regular appeal proceedings.
The tribunal restored the appeal back to the NFAC for fresh adjudication, providing the assessee with three effective opportunities to be heard. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(Appeals) was condonable due to the COVID-19 pandemic and Supreme Court orders extending limitation periods. The CIT(Appeals) order was set aside for de novo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that Section 80AC, as amended, was not applicable retrospectively to the assessment year in question. It also found that the assessee had indeed claimed the deduction in its belated return and that the interest income derived from both nominal and regular members did not disentitle the assessee to the deduction, relying on Supreme Court judgments.
The Tribunal dismissed the ground related to ESIC disallowance, upholding the settled law that delayed remittances are not deductible. However, it allowed the ground concerning sales incentives, finding the ad-hoc disallowance arbitrary without specific findings of non-genuineness.
The Tribunal held that the amendment to Section 143(1)(a)(v) disallowing Chapter VI-A deductions for delayed filing was inserted by the Finance Act, 2021, with prospective effect from 01.04.2021. As the assessment year in question is 2018-19, the disallowance was not sustainable in law.
The Tribunal noted that the NFAC had already allowed the assessee's appeal and deleted the fee under Section 234E. Therefore, the current appeal seeking reversal was considered infructuous.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merit and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution, citing a Bombay High Court judgment. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the penalty for the interest income difference was not warranted as it arose from delayed reporting by the deductor. For the gratuity exemption, the Tribunal found the assessee's belief in claiming the enhanced exemption to be bonafide, considering his past service as a government employee, and thus the penalty was not warranted.
The Tribunal held that interest income derived from nationalized/other banks also qualifies for deduction under Section 80P, following the precedent set in The Vaveru Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd. vs. CCIT. The Assessing Officer was directed to finalize consequential computations.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted a note on activities along with a list of beneficiaries and claimed to have filed supporting bills and invoices. The CIT(Exemption) had rejected the application solely on the ground of insufficient evidence.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss an appeal in limine for non-prosecution without dealing with the merits of the case. The CIT(A) must make necessary inquiries and decide each issue on merits in a speaking order, even in ex-parte proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss an appeal in limine for non-prosecution without dealing with the merits of the case. The CIT(A) must make necessary inquiries and decide each issue on merits in a speaking order, even in ex-parte proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss an appeal in limine for non-prosecution without dealing with the merits of the case. The CIT(A) must make necessary inquiries and decide each issue on merits in a speaking order, even in ex-parte proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss an appeal in limine for non-prosecution without dealing with the merits of the case. The CIT(A) must make necessary inquiries and decide each issue on merits in a speaking order, even in ex-parte proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss an appeal in limine for non-prosecution without dealing with the merits of the case. The CIT(A) must make necessary inquiries and decide each issue on merits in a speaking order, even in ex-parte proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss an appeal in limine for non-prosecution without dealing with the merits of the case. The CIT(A) must make necessary inquiries and decide each issue on merits in a speaking order, even in ex-parte proceedings.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution, as the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merits. The ITAT set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.