Loading ITAT cases…
194 orders · Page 1 of 4
The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal, citing a CBDT circular that extended the due date for filing applications. The Revenue had no objection, and the Tribunal allowed the withdrawal.
The Tribunal found that in the interest of justice and fair play, the matter should be remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to both parties.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order on the quantum appeal and consequently set aside the penalty order. The matter was restored to the CIT(A)'s file for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(Exemption) to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to submit the requisite details. The assessee was directed to comply without seeking adjournments, failing which the CIT(Exemption) could pass an order as per law.
The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST. Katiji & Ors, directed the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits. The Tribunal emphasized preferring substantial justice over technical considerations.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the provision for construction expenses, deleting the addition. It also allowed the ground relating to deemed rent by following its own precedent. The issue of depreciation disallowance was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(Exemption) to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to submit the requisite details. The assessee was directed to comply without seeking adjournments, failing which the CIT(Exemption) could pass an order as per law.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(Exemption) to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to submit the required details. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to decide the matter afresh after due opportunity.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application for withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that Section 23(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act applies when a property is let out for a part of the year and vacant for the remaining part. The conditions for applying Section 23(1)(c) were met, and the addition under Section 23(1)(a) was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had fulfilled their onus of proving the source of cash deposits by submitting sale bills, land revenue records (7/12 extracts), and bank statements. The AO failed to discharge their burden of proof to disprove the genuineness of these documents or conduct necessary inquiries.
The Tribunal held that Section 23(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act applies when a property is let out for a part of the year and vacant for the remaining part. The conditions for applying Section 23(1)(c) were met, and the addition under Section 23(1)(a) was not justified.
The Tribunal upheld the penalty levied under Section 271B. The assessee's failure to comply with the provisions of the VSV Act and provide necessary documentation was the primary reason for the decision.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A)-NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits, providing the assessee with opportunities to present their case. The assessee was directed to file and prove all relevant facts.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for exemption under Section 11 as it received registration under Section 12AA before the assessment order was passed. The assessment proceedings were considered pending from the date of filing the return.
The Tribunal held that the AO had not recorded his satisfaction regarding the correctness of the assessee's claim based on the accounts, which is a prerequisite for applying Rule 8D. Therefore, the disallowance made by the AO was not warranted.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer. This was done to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing, considering the challenges faced due to lack of technological familiarity and the Covid-19 pandemic.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from deposits made with cooperative banks and societies, as well as nationalised banks, qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(Exemption) to provide the assessee one more opportunity to furnish the required details. The CIT(Exemption) is directed to decide the case afresh after hearing the assessee.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A)-NFAC's order did not decide the substantive grounds of appeal on merits. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)-NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal noted that the assessee is a co-operative credit society whose prime function is accepting deposits and advancing loans to members. The interest income earned from nationalized banks was considered business income eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i).
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC had not properly dealt with the comparables provided by the assessee. Following its own precedent in a prior assessment year with identical facts, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A)/NFAC to re-examine the assessee's submissions and dispose of the appeal accordingly.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer. This was done to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing, considering the challenges faced due to lack of technological familiarity and the Covid-19 pandemic.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer. This was done to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing, considering the challenges faced due to lack of technological familiarity and the Covid-19 pandemic.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A)/NFAC to grant one last opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case, considering his claim of lack of technical knowledge in accessing online notices.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A)/NFAC failed to follow statutory requirements by dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution instead of deciding it on merits. The case was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh decision.
The tribunal found that the assessee failed to provide sufficient cause for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without considering its merits.
The Tribunal held that the rejection order was passed in violation of natural justice principles as the assessee's adjournment request was ignored. The matter was set aside and restored to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)/NFAC had not properly dealt with the comparables provided by the assessee. Following its own precedent in a prior assessment year with identical facts, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A)/NFAC to re-examine the assessee's submissions and dispose of the appeal accordingly.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from another cooperative bank qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act. This decision followed a coordinate bench ruling in the assessee's own case for other assessment years.
The Tribunal observed that the current appeal was a duplicate of a previously filed appeal for the same assessment year and the same issue. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the CIT(A)-NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits, providing the assessee with opportunities to present their case. The assessee was directed to file and prove all relevant facts.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte orders of the lower authorities and remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer. This was done to provide the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing, considering the challenges faced due to lack of technological familiarity and the Covid-19 pandemic.
The Tribunal held that both issues were covered by previous decisions of the ITAT in the assessee's own case for earlier years. Since no contrary decision from a higher forum was presented, the CIT(A)'s findings were upheld.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) with a direction to admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee and decide the matter afresh, considering the interest of justice.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) with a direction to admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee and decide the matter afresh, considering the interest of justice.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) with a direction to admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee and decide the matter afresh, considering the interest of justice.
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission regarding the incorrect email ID and the inability to represent the case before lower authorities. Considering the additional evidence provided, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's appeal for the same assessment year had already been heard and adjudicated upon. Therefore, the current appeal was considered infructuous.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) with a direction to admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee and decide the matter afresh, considering the interest of justice.
The Tribunal condoned the delay and set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A). The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of hearing to present their case.
The Tribunal held that deemed rent under Section 23(4) should be based on the municipal ratable value, not estimated fair market rent. The issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for determination based on municipal value.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, citing several Supreme Court and High Court decisions. It held that the PCIT's assumption of jurisdiction under Section 263 was not sustainable as the issue of exemption for interest income earned by cooperative societies was covered by binding precedents.
The Tribunal restored the issue of cash deposits to the AO for verification, endorsing the CIT(A)'s direction. For the issue of business income addition, the Tribunal restored the matter to the AO to decide afresh after considering the assessee's contentions and allowing an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal considered the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Since the Department had no objection, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as withdrawn.
The Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to provide at least three effective opportunities of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) with a direction to admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee and decide the matter afresh, considering the interest of justice.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) with a direction to admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee and decide the matter afresh, considering the interest of justice.
The Tribunal held that the proviso to Section 12A(2) allows registration granted under Section 12AA to apply retrospectively to pending assessment proceedings. Therefore, the assessee was eligible for exemption under Section 11 for AY 2016-17.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a co-operative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and its primary function is providing credit facilities to members. The interest income was earned from investments with various co-operative and nationalized banks.