Loading ITAT cases…
117 orders · Page 1 of 3
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to justifiable cause. It also restored the appeals to the CIT for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to represent its case properly after assuring due compliance.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of commission and brokerage was unjustified as the expenses were for business purposes and outstanding payments were made in the succeeding year. Similarly, the disallowance of machine maintenance charges was deleted as the assessee was contractually obligated to provide free maintenance services.
The Tribunal held that Section 271FAA was introduced by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2014, effective from 01.04.2015, and was not retrospective. Therefore, penalties could not be imposed for assessment years prior to its effective date.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without ensuring proper service of notice and opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The principles of natural justice were violated.
The Tribunal found that there was no evidence on record to prove that notices were served on the assessee. Therefore, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of the assessment was based on a mere change of opinion by the AO, as the issue of land investment was already examined and explained by the assessee during the original assessment proceedings. Therefore, the reassessment framed was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without sufficient proof of service of notices on the assessee. Therefore, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It also restored the issues to the file of the AO for de novo assessment, granting the assessee an opportunity to present their case, while directing cooperation.
The Tribunal held that Section 271FAA was introduced effective from 01.04.2015 and was not retrospective. Therefore, penalties could not be imposed for assessment years prior to its effective date.
The Tribunal held that the revenue cannot substitute its judgment for that of a prudent businessman regarding commercial expediency. Investments made for business purposes, even if not directly related to the primary business, are allowable if there's a nexus.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the AO's rejection of books was arbitrary. The AO failed to conduct independent investigations and relied on isolated instances without proper justification.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals due to justifiable cause. It also restored the appeals to the CIT for fresh adjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to represent its case properly after assuring due compliance.
The Tribunal held that at the stage of granting registration under Section 12AA, the CIT(Exemptions) should only examine if the objects of the trust are charitable, not the genuineness of its activities or financial transactions. The CIT(Exemptions) had failed to examine the charitable nature of the trust's objects.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard, which is a violation of the principle of natural justice. Therefore, the case was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that a direct appeal against an order of the Director of Income Tax (I&CI) levying penalty under Section 271FA is not maintainable before the ITAT. The assessee should have first appealed to the CIT(Appeals).
The Tribunal restored both appeals to the file of the AO for de novo adjudication after both parties agreed to this course of action. The AO was directed to examine the issues afresh and provide a proper opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that registration of the trust deed under the Indian Registration Act is not mandatory. It also clarified that at the stage of registration, the CIT(E) should verify the genuineness of the trust and its activities as per its objects, not the application of funds or the nature of income derived.
The Tribunal held that the AO accepted the identity and genuineness of the unsecured loans in the remand report, thus the addition was unjustified. Regarding expenses, the Tribunal found the sustained disallowance unjustified as the net profit rate was reasonable and no specific unverified expenses were identified.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a cryptic order without discussing the merits of the case or providing reasoning. Therefore, the order was set aside and the case was restored to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT's observation was factually incorrect as a dissolution clause was present in the trust deed. The issue of registration was restored to the CIT for reconsideration.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeals given the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015 and Section 268A of the Act. The instructions in the circular are applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable on estimated income without evidence of concealment or inaccurate particulars. It also held that penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is unjustified in the absence of proof of service of notices for which non-compliance was alleged.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding reasonable cause. It held that the CIT(A) should not have passed ex-parte orders without ensuring proper service of notices and providing an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemptions) did not provide specific material to support the rejection and passed the order ex-parte without proper notice. Therefore, the case was set aside for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not rejected the assessee's books of accounts and had directed the assessee to obtain valuation reports, which is akin to a DVO reference. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide a due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding reasonable cause. It held that the CIT(A) should not have passed ex-parte orders without ensuring proper service of notices and providing an opportunity to be heard.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeals given the low tax effect, as per CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015 and Section 268A of the Act. The instructions in the circular are applicable retrospectively to pending appeals.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, stating that the non-issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) is a jurisdictional defect and not a curable procedural lapse. Participation of the assessee in proceedings does not cure this defect.
The Tribunal held that penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not leviable on estimated income without evidence of concealment. It also held that penalty under Section 271(1)(b) is unjustified in the absence of proof of service of notices on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without proper notice and service to the assessee, violating the principle of natural justice. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeals. It held that the CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeals without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard and set aside the orders.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without proper substantiation of notice service to the assessee. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order indicated no opportunity of hearing was given, despite claims of notice issuance. Following the principle of 'audi alteram partem', the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without discussing the merits and without substantiating that the notice of hearing was served on the assessee. The principle of 'audi alteram partem' was invoked.
The Tribunal, while noting the assessee's casual approach, decided to grant one last opportunity in the interest of justice. The case was restored to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing proper opportunity.
The Tribunal considered the written withdrawal request from the assessee's counsel and the lack of objection from the Revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the AO for de novo assessment, granting the assessee a proper opportunity to present their case. The assessee was directed to cooperate fully, failing which the AO could proceed ex-parte.
The Tribunal noted that there was no proof of service of the hearing notice on the assessee. Therefore, the case was set aside to the CIT(Exemptions) for a fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeal without hearing the assessee. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeals. It held that the CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeals without providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard and set aside the orders.
The Tribunal held that the Revenue should not have filed the appeal given the low tax effect, as per CBDT circulars and Section 268A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee also chose not to press their cross-objection.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(Appeals) with a direction to pass a fresh order on merits after providing a proper opportunity to the assessee. The assessee was also directed to ensure full compliance.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT (Exemptions) did not comment on the charitable nature or genuineness of the assessee's activities. Therefore, the case was set aside for fresh adjudication.