Loading ITAT cases…
194 orders · Page 4 of 4
The Tribunal held that filing of the audit report (Form 10B) is not a mandatory condition and is curable. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for factual verification.
The Tribunal held that the denial of deduction under Section 80IB(10) was justified as the project was not completed within the prescribed time limit. The Tribunal also found that the prima facie adjustment made under Section 143(1)(a)(iv) was permissible in this case.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on deposits made from surplus funds with cooperative banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The reasoning of the lower authorities was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that the return was filed within the extended due date as per CBDT notification. Therefore, the CPC should not have disallowed the Section 80P deductions.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without considering the merits of the case. The CIT(A) should have dealt with the issue on merits, even in an ex-parte order.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. The Tribunal held that the situs of the Assessing Officer is the sole factor for determining the jurisdiction of the appellate forum.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. The Tribunal held that the situs of the Assessing Officer is the sole factor for determining the jurisdiction of the appellate forum.
The Tribunal found that the NFAC order was passed ex-parte without proper adjudication and adherence to Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while Form 10IE was filed late, it was available to the CPC at the time of processing. The Tribunal considered the filing of Form 10IE to be directory, not mandatory, and directed the CPC to amend the intimation.
The Tribunal held that the addition of GST refund through a prima-facie adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(iv) was permissible. However, the matter was remanded for fresh verification regarding the tax-neutrality of the accounting method used.
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not properly verified the brokerage claim. Given that the Tribunal had previously held capital gains to be taxable in AY 2011-12, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that while the addition of GST refund in summary assessment under section 143(1)(a)(iv) is permissible, the issue of tax neutrality due to the accounting method requires further verification. The violation of natural justice in treating the item under section 28(iiic) also warranted setting aside the order.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) did not provide proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee as notices were only uploaded on the ITBA portal. Therefore, the ex-parte order was set aside.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's explanation for the delay and was satisfied with the reasons provided in the affidavit. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the appeal on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the CIT(A) failed to decide the appeal on merits as required by Section 250(6) of the IT Act. Therefore, the ex-parte order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte, especially as notices were sent to an email address not mentioned in the appeal memo, leading to the assessee's unawareness. The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order.
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeal and set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A). The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the period of limitation for filing an appeal should be reckoned from the date of knowledge of the order, not the date of its passing. The CIT(A)/NFAC should have condoned the 14-day delay and adjudicated the appeal.
The Tribunal held that Section 249(4)(b) requires payment of advance tax payable by the assessee, not necessarily on the assessed income. Since the assessee had paid tax on undisputed income through TCS, the appeal should not have been dismissed in limine.
The Tribunal, following its own previous order in the assessee's case, held that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a) even on additions made to its income. Therefore, the AO was directed to allow the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the cancellation of the existing registration was unjustified as no violations were found, and the principles of natural justice were not followed. The application for changing the objects was directed to be reconsidered.
The Tribunal held that since the addition made by the AO did not survive after the CIT(A)'s order and the assessee had no taxable capital gain, there was no concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) was unsustainable.
The tribunal granted the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal restored the appeal back to the CIT(A)-NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee is responsible for filing and proving all relevant facts in the consequential proceedings.
The Tribunal upheld the NFAC's order deleting the addition of Rs. 1,20,45,000/-. The Tribunal noted that there was no dispute that the assessee made cash deposits of Rs. 1,20,45,000/- in SBNs during the demonetization period, attributing the source to receipts from its members. The Revenue's sole contention was that since SBNs were demonetized, the assessee was not entitled to receive them, and thus Section 68 was rightly invoked. However, the Tribunal found this stand unconvincing because the assessee had fully proved the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of its members who deposited these SBNs. The Tribunal referred to its coordinate bench's decision in Shrijeet Finance (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, which held that for Section 68 to be invoked, the AO must prove the assessee's failure to establish the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the depositors. In the present case, the assessee had submitted details of members, and the AO had not challenged these aspects. Therefore, the addition under Section 68 was not sustainable. The Tribunal adopted the NFAC's detailed discussion and reasoning mutatis mutandis. The addition of Rs. 1,20,45,000/- was treated as unsustainable and directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that interest earned from investments with a cooperative bank is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) as it is an integral part of the society's business. The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench's decision in a similar case.
The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's grounds of appeal. It noted that the NFAC had admitted additional evidence and received a remand report from the AO, which did not find any lacuna in the assessee's explanation for the investment.
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence and restored the issue of the cost of acquisition of land back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. Similarly, the issue of depreciation disallowance was also restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, following previous orders of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal held that the cooperative society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P on interest earned from investments in cooperative and nationalized banks, as well as on dividend income. The Tribunal followed previous decisions of the ITAT Pune Bench.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on deposits made with cooperative banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and Section 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The reasoning of the lower authorities was not accepted.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had rejected the applications without a proper verification of the genuineness of activities and compliance with laws. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted the cases back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on deposits with cooperative banks and nationalized banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and Section 80P(2)(d). Therefore, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was incorrect.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(E) had rejected the applications without a proper verification of the genuineness of activities and compliance with laws. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the orders and remitted the cases back to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The tribunal held that the NFAC's ex-parte dismissal without addressing the merits violated the principles of natural justice and Section 250(6) of the Act. The NFAC was mandated to provide clear reasons for its decision.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d). It relied on previous decisions of the Tribunal and High Courts which held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from investments in co-operative banks is eligible for deduction.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the delay (non-availability of deductees' PAN) was plausible and that no loss was caused to the revenue. Therefore, the penalty was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC's dismissal without touching merits, especially in ex-parte proceedings, violated Section 250(6) of the Act. The Tribunal also condoned the delay in filing the first appeal.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society from its investments in cooperative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). The Tribunal followed the view of the Karnataka and Gujarat High Courts, preferring the assessee-favorable interpretation in case of conflicting judgments.
The Tribunal held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) read with Section 263 is not an appealable order as per Section 253(1) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee is not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC's ex-parte dismissal without touching upon the merits of the case, despite the assessee's failure to appear, violated the principles of natural justice and Section 250(6) of the Act. The NFAC was mandated to provide clear reasons for its decision.
The Tribunal held that prima facie adjustments under Section 143(1) are only permissible for items not requiring further inquiry. As the nature of the receipt claimed as agricultural income required further investigation, the adjustment was not permissible. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order and that the assessee claimed to have filed a reply during penalty proceedings. Therefore, to ensure substantial justice, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that while the TDS was not initially reflected in Form 26AS at the time of assessment, an updated Form 26AS now shows the credit. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to grant full credit of taxes as appearing in the updated Form 26AS.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on deposits with cooperative banks and nationalized banks qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and Section 80P(2)(d). Therefore, the disallowance made by the lower authorities was incorrect.