Loading ITAT cases…
1,053 tribunal orders from the Pune bench in 2023.
Showing 40 of 1,053 orders. Use the months below for the rest.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had not properly adjudicated the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee. Citing the Bombay High Court's decision in Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), the Tribunal held that the CIT(Appeals) is obliged to adjudicate all grounds of appeal.
The Tribunal found that the CIT (Exemption) provided an unreasonably short period to respond to the notices, violating principles of natural justice. Additionally, a CBDT circular extended the time for filing applications, making the belated filing ground invalid.
The Tribunal found that the CIT (Exemption) provided an unreasonably short period to respond to the notices, violating principles of natural justice. Additionally, a CBDT circular extended the time for filing applications, making the belated filing ground invalid.
The tribunal proceeded ex-parte against the assessee. The assessee's counsel had filed a withdrawal letter for the appeal.
The Tribunal held that it would be just and fair to set aside the ex parte order and remit the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments in a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The PCIT erred in exercising revisional jurisdiction to disallow this claim.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering that both lower authorities passed orders ex parte, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Considering that both the assessment and the first appellate orders were passed ex parte, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order.
The Tribunal found it just and fair to set aside the ex parte order and remit the matter back to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal afresh after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal, considering that Income Tax laws are welfare legislations and in the interest of justice, decided to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to submit the required details and present their case.
The tribunal held that the NFAC, as a quasi-judicial authority, should have adjudicated the case on merits despite the assessee's non-compliance. Therefore, the order of the NFAC was set aside.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order passed by the CIT(Exemption) and restored the matter back to the CIT's file. The CIT was directed to decide the issue afresh after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that Income Tax laws are welfare legislations and not penal. Considering the importance of charitable activities, the assessee should be given one final opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(Exemption)'s order and restored the matter for a fresh decision. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to grant the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. The Tribunal found that the approval was granted mechanically, without an independent application of mind, as evidenced by the general nature of the approval and the limited time available to the approving authority given the volume of work. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sahara India (Firm) Vs. CIT and Another, which emphasizes that the approval process is a safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power and requires a judicious application of mind to the facts on record. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders dated March 30, 2016, making the issues raised in the Revenue's appeals infructuous. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. The Tribunal found that the approval was granted mechanically, without an independent application of mind, as evidenced by the general nature of the approval and the limited time available to the approving authority given the volume of work. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sahara India (Firm) Vs. CIT and Another, which emphasizes that the approval process is a safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power and requires a judicious application of mind to the facts on record. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders dated March 30, 2016, making the issues raised in the Revenue's appeals infructuous. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. The Tribunal found that the approval was granted mechanically, without an independent application of mind, as evidenced by the general nature of the approval and the limited time available to the approving authority given the volume of work. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sahara India (Firm) Vs. CIT and Another, which emphasizes that the approval process is a safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power and requires a judicious application of mind to the facts on record. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders dated March 30, 2016, making the issues raised in the Revenue's appeals infructuous. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. The Tribunal found that the approval was granted mechanically, without an independent application of mind, as evidenced by the general nature of the approval and the limited time available to the approving authority given the volume of work. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sahara India (Firm) Vs. CIT and Another, which emphasizes that the approval process is a safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power and requires a judicious application of mind to the facts on record. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders dated March 30, 2016, making the issues raised in the Revenue's appeals infructuous. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. The Tribunal found that the approval was granted mechanically, without an independent application of mind, as evidenced by the general nature of the approval and the limited time available to the approving authority given the volume of work. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sahara India (Firm) Vs. CIT and Another, which emphasizes that the approval process is a safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power and requires a judicious application of mind to the facts on record. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders dated March 30, 2016, making the issues raised in the Revenue's appeals infructuous. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. The Tribunal found that the approval was granted mechanically, without an independent application of mind, as evidenced by the general nature of the approval and the limited time available to the approving authority given the volume of work. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sahara India (Firm) Vs. CIT and Another, which emphasizes that the approval process is a safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power and requires a judicious application of mind to the facts on record. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders dated March 30, 2016, making the issues raised in the Revenue's appeals infructuous. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. The Tribunal found that the approval was granted mechanically, without an independent application of mind, as evidenced by the general nature of the approval and the limited time available to the approving authority given the volume of work. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sahara India (Firm) Vs. CIT and Another, which emphasizes that the approval process is a safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power and requires a judicious application of mind to the facts on record. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders dated March 30, 2016, making the issues raised in the Revenue's appeals infructuous. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. The Tribunal found that the approval was granted mechanically, without an independent application of mind, as evidenced by the general nature of the approval and the limited time available to the approving authority given the volume of work. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sahara India (Firm) Vs. CIT and Another, which emphasizes that the approval process is a safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power and requires a judicious application of mind to the facts on record. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders dated March 30, 2016, making the issues raised in the Revenue's appeals infructuous. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal has corrected the typographical error in its previous order. The word "u/s 263" shall be substituted for "u/s 236" in paragraph 8. The rest of the original order remains unchanged.
The Tribunal set aside the ex parte order of the CIT(A) and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision. This was to allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity to present their case and explain the source of the cash deposits.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. The Tribunal found that the approval was granted mechanically, without an independent application of mind, as evidenced by the general nature of the approval and the limited time available to the approving authority given the volume of work. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sahara India (Firm) Vs. CIT and Another, which emphasizes that the approval process is a safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power and requires a judicious application of mind to the facts on record. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders dated March 30, 2016, making the issues raised in the Revenue's appeals infructuous. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to provide documents but, considering the welfare nature of tax laws, granted one more opportunity. The matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. The Tribunal found that the approval was granted mechanically, without an independent application of mind, as evidenced by the general nature of the approval and the limited time available to the approving authority given the volume of work. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sahara India (Firm) Vs. CIT and Another, which emphasizes that the approval process is a safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power and requires a judicious application of mind to the facts on record. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders dated March 30, 2016, making the issues raised in the Revenue's appeals infructuous. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. The Tribunal found that the approval was granted mechanically, without an independent application of mind, as evidenced by the general nature of the approval and the limited time available to the approving authority given the volume of work. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sahara India (Firm) Vs. CIT and Another, which emphasizes that the approval process is a safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power and requires a judicious application of mind to the facts on record. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders dated March 30, 2016, making the issues raised in the Revenue's appeals infructuous. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. The Tribunal found that the approval was granted mechanically, without an independent application of mind, as evidenced by the general nature of the approval and the limited time available to the approving authority given the volume of work. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sahara India (Firm) Vs. CIT and Another, which emphasizes that the approval process is a safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power and requires a judicious application of mind to the facts on record. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders dated March 30, 2016, making the issues raised in the Revenue's appeals infructuous. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the approval granted by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 153D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was invalid. The Tribunal found that the approval was granted mechanically, without an independent application of mind, as evidenced by the general nature of the approval and the limited time available to the approving authority given the volume of work. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Sahara India (Firm) Vs. CIT and Another, which emphasizes that the approval process is a safeguard against arbitrary exercise of power and requires a judicious application of mind to the facts on record. Consequently, the Tribunal quashed the final assessment orders dated March 30, 2016, making the issues raised in the Revenue's appeals infructuous. The appeals filed by the assessee were allowed, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with another opportunity to explain the sales reversals. The CIT(A) is to decide the matter afresh after hearing the assessee.
The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) failed to properly consider the sales receipts, ledger, and the business nature of the assessee. Crucial evidence like the Shop Act License was not considered by the lower authorities.
The Tribunal held that the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) enhanced the assessee's income without providing an opportunity for a hearing, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
The tribunal held that the NFAC's dismissal of the appeal without deciding on merits caused prejudice to the assessee. Therefore, the NFAC was directed to re-adjudicate the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the impugned order. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the AO's addition was based solely on a self-declaration prepared in haste, without proper verification. The assessee had provided explanations and reconciliation statements which were not adequately rebutted by the revenue.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC should have adjudicated the appeals on merits based on available documents, rather than dismissing them for non-prosecution. Therefore, the matters were remitted back to the NFAC for specific adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal, considering the Income Tax Act as a welfare legislation and this being the first time the matter reached the Tribunal, decided to provide one final opportunity to the assessee. The case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to allow the assessee an opportunity to explain the reasons for the belated filing of appeals and thereafter proceed as per law.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC should have adjudicated the appeals on merits based on available documents, rather than dismissing them for non-prosecution. Therefore, the matters were remitted back to the NFAC for specific adjudication on merits.