Loading ITAT cases…
228 orders · Page 5 of 5
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, holding that the CIT(A)-NFAC should have considered the period of the COVID-19 pandemic exclusion for limitation. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)-NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the legal grounds raised by the assessee, which is a procedural error. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the penalties under Section 271(1)(b) and 271F for non-compliance and failure to file the return, respectively. However, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the penalties under Section 271(1)(b) and 271F for non-compliance and failure to file the return, respectively. However, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC erred in refusing to condone the delay without properly considering the 'sufficient cause' presented by the assessee. Furthermore, the Tribunal ruled that interest income earned by a cooperative society on deposits with a cooperative bank qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d).
The Tribunal found that the assessee had indeed filed submissions before the CIT(A) which were not considered. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the penalties under Section 271(1)(b) and 271F for non-compliance and failure to file the return, respectively. However, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution without deciding the grounds on merits, which was in contravention of law. The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal restored the appeal 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 found the NFAC's order lacked detailed factual discussion regarding the creditors and the proviso to Section 68. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the NFAC, citing the Supreme Court's directions on limitation periods and emphasizing a justice-oriented approach. The matter was set aside and remanded for de-novo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order did not decide the substantive grounds on merits as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was eligible for exemption as Form 10B was available with the CPC during processing, and the trust had provisional 12A registration. The delay in filing Form 10B was condoned, citing pandemic reasons and reliance on previous judgments.
The Tribunal noted that the change in accounting method was accepted in principle. However, the correctness of the impugned addition was disputed due to a potential miscalculation of the increase in sundry creditors. Therefore, the addition was set aside for fresh examination by the Assessing Officer.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal should have been condoned as it occurred during the period of the Covid-19 pandemic. The matter was remitted back to the NFAC to decide the appeal on merits after condoning the delay.
The Tribunal held that the statutory amendment to Section 200A(1) of the Income Tax Act, which allowed for the levy of late filing fees, had prospective effect from June 1, 2015. Since the assessment year in question was 2014-2015, the amendment was not applicable.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal solely on delay without adjudicating the grounds on merits. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed it to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A)/NFAC's file, granting the assessee one final opportunity to present their case. The assessee is directed to submit requisite details without seeking further adjournments.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals before the NFAC, citing the Supreme Court's directions on limitation periods and emphasizing a justice-oriented approach. The matter was set aside and remanded for de-novo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessment made for AY 2009-10 was barred by limitation as it fell outside the ten-year block period prescribed under section 153C, reckoned from the date of handing over of materials.
The Tribunal held that the NFAC erred by dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution without deciding on merits, as per established legal principles. The matter was remanded to the NFAC for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of cash payments under Section 40A(3) does not fall within the scope of adjustments permissible under Section 143(1) processing. Such disallowances require examination of evidence for exceptions under Rule 6DD, which is beyond the scope of summary processing.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had satisfactorily explained the source and nature of the cash deposits as part of his agency business. The Revenue failed to provide contrary material to disprove the assessee's explanation.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to provide substantive evidence to support claims under Rule 6DD. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to provide substantive evidence to support claims under Rule 6DD. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to provide substantive evidence to support claims under Rule 6DD. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the COVID-19 pandemic, as recognized by the Supreme Court, constitutes a reasonable cause for non-compliance. Therefore, the penalty imposed under Section 272A(1)(d) was unwarranted.
The Tribunal set aside the issues of concessional sale of sugar and bio-compost to the AO for de-novo adjudication, directing verification of accounts and member details. The addition on account of advertisement expenses was deleted, while the disallowance for Sabha Samarambha expenses was upheld.