Loading ITAT cases…
139 orders · Page 3 of 3
The ITAT condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the COVID-19 period and the assessee's circumstances. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by not providing the assessee with an opportunity for a video conference hearing, violating the principles of natural justice. The impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal found that the issues raised by the CIT(Exemption) did not fall under the specified violations listed in Section 12AB. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessees had sufficient cause for not prosecuting their appeals and that the NFAC orders were passed ex-parte without adhering to the mandate of Section 250(6). Therefore, the assessees deserve another opportunity to present their cases.
The Tribunal held that the assessees had sufficient cause for not prosecuting their appeals and that the NFAC orders were passed ex-parte without adhering to the mandate of Section 250(6). Therefore, the assessees deserve another opportunity to present their cases.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) denied registration without considering the appellant's submissions. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(Exemption) for fresh disposal.
The Tribunal found that while the assessee claimed the deposits were for clients, the evidence provided (GRAS printouts) needed to be cross-tallied with the bank account entries and proof of agency. Therefore, the issue was set aside to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that there is no bar to claiming deductions under sections 54 and 54F simultaneously for the same new residential property. It also found that the possession of the new property was taken on 31.03.2015, which is within the stipulated period before the sale of the original asset, and the CIT(A)'s finding of fabrication was unsubstantiated.
The Tribunal held that the literal interpretation of Section 80G(5) proviso clause (iii) leads to an absurd result for trusts that commenced activities before provisional approval. They interpreted the clause to mean 'whichever is later' instead of 'whichever is earlier' in such cases.
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the assessee's books of accounts due to the non-production of substantial stock and inventory records. However, the estimation of gross profit at 8% was set aside and remanded for fresh determination.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of FTC for non-compliance with the procedural requirement of filing Form 67 within the due date is not fatal to the claim, especially when DTAA provisions override the Act and Rules. The matter was restored to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred by solely relying on the Managing Director's statement without conducting independent verification or linking the admission to the specific assessment year. The additions were deleted as they lacked proper evidence and were based on an estimated figure.
The Tribunal upheld the rejection of the assessee's books of accounts due to the non-production of substantial stock and inventory records. However, the estimation of gross profit at 8% was set aside and remanded for fresh determination.
The Tribunal held that the explanation for the delay was not believable, especially considering the involvement of a Chartered Accountant and the availability of SMS notifications. The Tribunal emphasized that while a liberal approach is taken for condoning delay, it cannot be used to defeat the law of limitation, and negligence or lack of due diligence can be grounds for refusal.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order, directed the condonation of delay, and remanded the case back to the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on its merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the death of the assessee's counsel. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on its merits after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid as the information about cash repayments was new. However, the additions made under Section 69A were based on conjecture and guesswork as the Revenue failed to prove that the entire cash withdrawal was utilized for construction, leaving no balance for repayment.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment under Section 147 was valid as the information about cash repayments was new. However, the additions made under Section 69A were based on conjecture and guesswork as the Revenue failed to prove that the entire cash withdrawal was utilized for construction, leaving no balance for repayment.
The Tribunal restored the issues of unsecured loans, commission expenses, and salary/wages to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. It found that the CIT(A) had not fully considered the details provided by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the CPC was obliged to communicate with the assessee before making any prima-facie adjustment under Section 143(1). Since no communication was made, the orders of the subordinate authorities were set aside.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(vi) as the income was not derived from the collective disposal of labour. However, it directed the AO to verify and allow the deduction for interest income under Section 80P(2)(d) if conditions were met.
The Tribunal held that the reopening of assessment was invalid as the reasons recorded did not allege any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts, and the proviso to Section 147 was applicable. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not justified.
The assessee's appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The withdrawal was permitted because the assessee had obtained a new registration under Section 12A(1)(ac)(i) after a relevant CBDT circular was issued.
The Tribunal restored the issue of addition of interest income to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication. Consequently, the penalty matter was also restored to the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) paid by a domestic company is not covered by the DTAA provisions, and therefore, the assessee cannot claim a lower tax rate as per the treaty. The DDT is payable at the rate prescribed under Section 115-O of the Income Tax Act.
The Tribunal held that a literal interpretation of Section 80G(5) proviso clause (iii) leads to absurdity for trusts that commenced activities before provisional approval. They reinterpreted the clause to mean 'whichever is later' instead of 'whichever is earlier'.
The Tribunal granted permission to the appellant company to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a cooperative society on fixed deposits with cooperative banks/scheduled banks partakes the character of business income and is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to allow the exemption.
The Tribunal held that an order not signed digitally or physically by the issuing authority, as required by Section 282A of the Act and Rule 127A of the IT Rules, ceases to have any effect in law. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.
The Tribunal held that a statement recorded under Section 133A, which is not on oath, does not automatically bind the assessee. The addition was made solely on the basis of this statement without corroborative evidence of errors or omissions.
The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) dismissing the appeal. The assessee failed to provide sufficient cause or evidence for the inordinate delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC is obliged to decide an appeal on merits and cannot dismiss it for non-prosecution. Therefore, the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was given an unreasonably short period to respond to the second notice, violating principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the source and nature of the cash deposits with supporting evidence. The Revenue failed to provide any material to disprove the assessee's explanation.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was prevented from prosecuting the appeal before the CIT(A) due to notices being sent electronically and not being noticed. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the legal grounds challenging the jurisdiction and the merits of the case as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. The CIT(A) dismissed the grounds as general without proper adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the legal grounds challenging the jurisdiction and the merits of the case as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. The CIT(A) dismissed the grounds as general without proper adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the legal grounds challenging the jurisdiction and the merits of the case as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. The CIT(A) dismissed the grounds as general without proper adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the legal grounds challenging the jurisdiction and the merits of the case as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. The CIT(A) dismissed the grounds as general without proper adjudication.