Loading ITAT cases…
132 orders · Page 3 of 3
The Tribunal held that a letter from the ITO for recovery of outstanding demand is not an appealable order under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in dismissing the appeals as not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that a letter from the ITO for recovery of outstanding demand is not an appealable order under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the CIT(A) was correct in dismissing the appeals as not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that an appellate authority, even when passing an ex-parte order, must decide on merits. Since the NFAC dismissed the appeal without considering the merits, its order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of revenue expenditure would only inflate the trust's surplus income. Since this surplus did not exceed the 15% accumulation limit, no addition was warranted.
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's prayer and remanded the matter back to the NFAC. The NFAC is directed to ignore the withdrawal communication and adjudicate the issue de novo, providing three effective hearings.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities' reasoning for rejecting the explanation of cash deposits from prior withdrawals was unsustainable. However, as the AO had not examined the availability of cash with reference to bank entries, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal accepted the Revenue's application for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
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.
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide an appeal on its merits and cannot dismiss it for non-prosecution, citing a Bombay High Court judgment. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the denial of Section 10(46) exemption due to the lack of statutory notification. However, the issue regarding the taxability of grants received from the state government was restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that even an ex-parte order should be based on merits. The CIT(A) failed to consider the assessee's contentions regarding agricultural land and the applicability of a High Court decision.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was wrongly levied in assessment year 2010-2011 because the seized document indicated the on-money payment was received by the vendor on or before 06.10.2006, which would fall in an earlier assessment year. Therefore, the penalty was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal found that the NFAC passed the order without considering the evidence of earlier years' income tax returns submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC passed an ex-parte order without considering the merits of the case. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the NFAC for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) for adjudicating an alternative ground of appeal that was not previously decided. This ground concerned the allowance of interest against interest income earned from deposits made from the same funds.
The Tribunal upheld the denial of Section 10(46) exemption due to the lack of statutory notification. However, the issue regarding the taxability of grants received from the state government was restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the NFAC had passed an ex-parte order without considering the documents submitted by the assessee. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, agreeing that a letter from the Income Tax Officer is not an appealable order under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the appeal was rightly dismissed as not maintainable.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(Exemption) did not grant a proper opportunity to the assessee to represent their case. The order of the CIT(Exemption) was set aside for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive the notices due to a change in accountant and lack of communication to the Board of Trustees. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal accepted the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. Since the cause of action had ceased to exist due to the grant of registration, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal found that the assessee did not receive the notices due to a change in accountant and lack of communication to the Board of Trustees. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to specify the relevant limb of Section 270A(9) in the show cause notices is an incurable defect that vitiates the penalty proceedings. Consequently, the imposed penalties were deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the 17-day delay in filing the appeal before the NFAC. The case was restored to the NFAC for adjudication on its merits.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to make an ad-hoc disallowance without pointing out any defects in the expenditure claims. The expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for earning income is allowable under Section 57(iii).
The Tribunal found that the assessee had reasonable cause for non-compliance and deserved another opportunity. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the failure of the Assessing Officer to specify the relevant limb of Section 270A(9) in the show cause notices is an incurable defect that vitiates the penalty proceedings. Consequently, the imposed penalties were deleted.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had reasonable cause for non-compliance and deserved another opportunity. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee presented new evidence in its paper book which was not submitted before the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh factual verification and adjudication.
The assessee wished to withdraw the appeal as a subsequent order had been passed by the Assessing Officer giving effect to the CIT(A)'s order, resulting in a taxable income of Rs. Nil. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form No. 67 is procedural and directory, not mandatory, in nature. The primary object of the rule is to verify the genuineness of the claim, and a belated filing does not defeat this purpose if done before the processing of the return.
The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of GST late fees as the assessee failed to provide supporting documents. The addition under Section 69A was also upheld as the assessee could not prove the genuineness of the cash advances.