Loading ITAT cases…
194 orders · Page 2 of 4
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance of improvement cost and allow the deduction under Section 54. It noted that similar claims for the assessee's spouse were allowed in prior proceedings.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC was not justified in upholding the ad-hoc disallowance of Rs. 3,27,91,602. The Tribunal found sufficient force in the assessee's argument that the accounts were audited, and details substantiating the allocation of common expenses on the basis of business volume were provided. Crucially, similar allocation was accepted by the AO in the immediately preceding assessment year without any disallowance or initiation of remedial measures. The assessee had capitalized common expenses to work-in-progress as per its regularly followed project completion method. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded there was no reason to disallow these expenses solely because the assessee followed the project completion method, especially without pointing out any discrepancies in the audited accounts. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC on this issue and directed the AO to delete the addition. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on this issue were allowed. The judgment does not explicitly address the first issue regarding the addition of Rs. 2,29,15,350, but the overall result indicates that the appeal was allowed, implying this issue might have been resolved in favor of the assessee or was not the primary basis for the appeal's allowance.
The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemption) should have considered the application on merits even if it was an ex parte order. To meet the ends of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh disposal.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits, even if ex-parte. Therefore, the matter is remitted back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo disposal.
The Tribunal held that service of notice through the ITBA portal is not a valid method of service as per Section 282(1) of the Act. Therefore, the notices were not properly served on the assessee.
The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without providing the assessee a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the ex-parte order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obligated to decide appeals on merit and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution, as per the Bombay High Court ruling. The CIT(A) must provide an opportunity for hearing and adjudicate all grounds.
The Tribunal, following decisions of various High Courts and its own bench, held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its surplus funds invested in banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P. The addition made by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted.
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 fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that a notice was sent to the wrong email address. Therefore, the ex-parte order of the CIT(E) was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision.
The tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obliged to decide appeals on merit 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 CIT(A) passed the order without verifying the documents produced before the ITAT. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the AO for a fresh assessment.
The Tribunal held that the phrase 'within six months of commencement of its activities' in Section 80G(5) should be interpreted to apply to trusts that had not started activities before provisional registration. Therefore, the assessee's application was considered valid and maintainable.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) due to non-consideration of the assessee's submissions. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for the limited purpose of adjudicating the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that once an expenditure is accounted for in the regular books of account, its source is considered explained, and Section 69C is not applicable. The lower authorities were incorrect in treating the expenditure as unexplained.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of appeals on merits, even if ex-parte. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh disposal of the issues.
The Tribunal held that the initiation of Section 153C proceedings was beyond the statutory limit of six assessment years preceding the search. Therefore, the proceedings and the consequent assessment were quashed.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in deleting the addition as the assessee had explained the credit entries as sale proceeds. The Tribunal also dismissed the assessee's cross-objections as not pressed.
The Tribunal held that interest earned on investments by a cooperative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). It also found that the assessee had discharged its onus regarding the source of cash deposits, shifting the burden to the revenue which failed to rebut.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the CIT to reconsider the application afresh. This was based on the recent CBDT circular which permits filing fresh applications or condones delays for applications rejected solely on time-bar grounds.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without providing adequate opportunity of hearing, as details of notices were not mentioned in the order. The ex-parte order was set aside.
The Tribunal corrected the typographical error in its previous order. It clarified that 9 buildings were completed in the Bloomfield project, not 6, as inadvertently mentioned.
The Tribunal held that the assessee is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) for interest income earned from nationalized banks. The AO's denial of deduction was based on an incorrect interpretation of the law.
The Tribunal corrected the typographical error in its previous order. It clarified that 9 buildings were completed in the Bloomfield project, not 6, as inadvertently mentioned.
The Tribunal held that the CIT's observations regarding the specifics of activities were irrelevant at the stage of granting registration. The CIT should only verify if the objects are charitable and the proposed activities are genuine and in line with those objects.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obliged to decide appeals on merit and cannot dismiss them for non-prosecution. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding the assessee's explanation for non-receipt of notices credible. The matter was remitted back to the CIT (Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the NFAC had already treated the assessee as eligible for Section 80P deduction. Therefore, the disallowances that increased the business income should also be eligible for deduction, following CBDT Circular No. 27/2016.
The Tribunal restored the assessee's grounds to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. This was due to the ex-parte order and the failure to effectively comply with Section 250(6) of the Act.
The Tribunal followed a precedent case (Narender Singh Yadav Vs. ACIT) which held that employees of government organizations are entitled to leave encashment exemption. The Tribunal adopted this reasoning to allow the assessee's appeal.
The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings under Section 270A were vitiated because the Assessing Officer failed to specify the relevant clauses (a to f) of sub-section (9) in the show cause notice, as required by sub-section (8).
The Tribunal held that the 10% tolerance margin under the first proviso to Section 43CA(1) was applicable. The revenue's argument that the Finance Act, 2020 amendment was prospective was rejected.
The Tribunal noted that the NFAC did not effectively frame points of determination and adjudicate them. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without properly appreciating the applicability of Section 69 and other relevant sections. The Tribunal also noted the assessee's contention regarding the inapplicability of Section 56(2)(viii) and Section 56(2)(x) for the relevant assessment year.
The Tribunal noted that the NFAC did not effectively frame points of determination and adjudicate them. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the NFAC's order did not comply with the requirements of Section 250(6) of the Act, as it failed to frame points of determination and provide detailed adjudication. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the phrase 'within six months of commencement of its activities' should be interpreted harmoniously to avoid absurdity, applying to trusts that had not started activities before provisional registration. Therefore, the assessee's application was considered valid and maintainable.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be given three effective opportunities of hearing to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's failure to pinpoint the specific default under section 270A(9) vitiates the entire penalty proceedings. Reliance on a jurisdictional High Court decision was rejected as the issue before that court was different.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be given three effective opportunities of hearing to present their case.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be given three effective opportunities of hearing to present their case.
The Tribunal restored the appeals to the NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee is to be given three effective opportunities of hearing to present their case.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had failed to consider the assessee's written submissions. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh, speaking order.
The Tribunal, in this case, has not yet delivered a final decision as the provided text appears to be the beginning of the judgment. The facts indicate the assessee's claim for deduction and the AO's denial based on specific legal interpretations.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the issue to the CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to substantiate their case, with a warning against seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, providing one more opportunity to the assessee to submit supporting documents for the claimed deduction. The assessee was directed to comply without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the orders were passed ex parte and the assessee, being illiterate, could not check email notices. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for a fresh disposal.
The Tribunal restored the quantum appeals to the CIT(A)/NFAC for adjudication on merits, emphasizing substantial justice over procedural technicalities. The penalty appeals were allowed consequentially.
The tribunal restored both issues back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done in light of legislative amendments (Section 155(19) and Section 36(1)(xvii)) and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.