Loading ITAT cases…
208 orders · Page 2 of 5
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide specific details of individual repayments exceeding Rs. 20,000 to establish a violation of Section 269T. The penalty under Section 271E was therefore not maintainable.
The Tribunal found that the assessee is a wholly Religious Trust managing a temple and had provided the Trust Deed and expenditure details. The rejection by the CIT(E) was set aside for fresh adjudication, with an opportunity to be provided to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing returns was due to delays in statutory audits. Following CBDT circulars, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after the outcome of the assessee's condonation application for delay.
The Tribunal held that interest earned from banks by a co-operative credit society is eligible for deduction under Section 80P. Therefore, claiming such deduction does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars, making the penalty unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the requirement to file Form No. 67 within the due date for filing the return of income is directory, not mandatory. Since the form was available with the CPC before processing, the claim for foreign tax credit should not be denied solely on this ground.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide all required information and documents to the CIT, who was instructed to grant a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the filing of Form No. 67 is directory in nature, not mandatory. Since the form was available with the CPC before processing the return, the denial of foreign tax credit solely on the ground of late filing was unjustified.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide specific details of individual repayments exceeding Rs. 20,000 to establish a violation of Section 269T. The penalty under Section 271E was therefore not maintainable.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical condition. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC, considering the Covid-19 period and the larger interest of justice. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the rejection was based on a technical error and no adverse inference was drawn on merits. Following precedent, the matter was remanded back to the CIT.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had reasonable cause for the delay due to ill health, coinciding with the assessment order date. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing returns was due to delays in statutory audits. Following CBDT circulars, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after the outcome of the assessee's condonation application for delay.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's medical condition. It set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee an opportunity to present their case.
The Tribunal held that the assessment order was passed under Section 144 without providing the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination of members whose statements were used and without providing directions under Section 144A. Therefore, the matter was set aside for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing returns was due to delays in statutory audits. Following CBDT circulars, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after the outcome of the assessee's condonation application for delay.
The Tribunal held that the DTAA does not get triggered when a domestic company pays DDT under Section 115-O of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessee is not eligible for a refund of excess DDT as claimed.
The Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee were dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal held that interest earned from banks by co-operative credit societies is eligible for deduction under Section 80P, following various judicial precedents. Therefore, claiming such deduction does not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) because the assessee should not suffer due to the failure of their tax consultant. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the details of the transactions were not clearly explained due to a joint overdraft bank account. Therefore, the issue was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for further examination of loan details, bank statements, and supporting documents.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to provide specific details of individual repayments exceeding Rs. 20,000 to establish a violation of Section 269T. The penalty under Section 271E was therefore not maintainable.
The Tribunal held that the rejection was based on a technical error, and no adverse findings were made on merits. The matter was remanded to the CIT to consider the applications as if filed under the correct section.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard, especially considering discrepancies in hearing dates. The ex-parte order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution, as substantial justice is more important than procedural aspects. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the case for de novo adjudication, directing the CIT(A) to provide an opportunity to the assessee and to refer the valuation issue to the DVO.
The Tribunal held that the addition on account of cash deposits was not warranted as the assessee had sufficient opening cash balance. However, the addition on account of agricultural income was confirmed as the assessee failed to prove its genuineness. The levy of tax under Section 115BBE at the enhanced rate was upheld.
The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to provide an opportunity to the assessee to present necessary documents.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee, including a retraction affidavit and repayment ledger, as these had a bearing on the appeal and there was sufficient cause for not filing them earlier. However, since these were not examined by the lower authorities, the case was set aside for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide the required information and evidence, and the CIT was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide the required information and evidence, and the CIT was instructed to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had completed the project and applied for the completion certificate before the statutory deadline. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal found the assessee eligible for the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had completed the project and applied for the completion certificate before the statutory deadline. Following the jurisdictional High Court's decision, the Tribunal found the assessee eligible for the deduction.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer (AO) erred in making an addition to the income as the DRP's directions are binding on the AO. The AO had no jurisdiction to make the addition after the DRP had held the proposed adjustment unsustainable.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had correctly computed the disallowable items by adding back provisions and claiming only actual expenses. The CPC erred in making adjustments due to the way the return was filed, which did not allow for clear demonstration of these calculations.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) due to sufficient reason for the delay in filing the appeal. The case was remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, with an opportunity for the assessee to present necessary documents.
The Tribunal held that payment of income tax out of current year's income by a trust is an allowable application of income for charitable purposes. The Assessing Officer had conducted adequate enquiry and taken a permissible view, thus the CIT's revisionary order was incorrect.
The Tribunal held that the CPC's rectification order taxing the assessee at normal rates instead of under Section 115BAA was invalid as the option, once exercised and not withdrawn, cannot be disallowed without reason or opportunity. The issue of TDS credit, however, required verification.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the CIT(A)/NFAC had not decided the appeals on merits as required by law. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that if the assessee applied for completion certificates before the stipulated date and the delay was on the part of the authorities, the deduction should not be denied. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without granting an opportunity of hearing and without deciding the issue on merits. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. It held that the CIT(A)/NFAC had not decided the appeals on merits as required by law. Therefore, the appeals were restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that if the assessee applied for completion certificates before the stipulated date and the delay was on the part of the authorities, the deduction should not be denied. The matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment and appellate proceedings were decided ex-parte. Considering the assessee's plea of inability to represent due to circumstances beyond his control, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the application should be treated as filed within the time limit, following previous decisions with similar facts. The CIT(Exemption) was directed to decide the eligibility for registration on merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment and appellate proceedings were decided ex-parte. Considering the assessee's plea of inability to represent due to circumstances beyond his control, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment and appellate proceedings were decided ex-parte. Considering the assessee's plea of inability to represent due to circumstances beyond his control, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment and appellate proceedings were decided ex-parte. Considering the assessee's plea of inability to represent due to circumstances beyond his control, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal found that proper opportunity of hearing was not provided to the assessee as notices were sent to incorrect email addresses and hearing dates were too close. Therefore, the ex-parte order was set aside.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to cooperate with the CIT and provide necessary documents.
The Tribunal noted that the assessment and appellate proceedings were decided ex-parte. Considering the assessee's plea of inability to represent due to circumstances beyond his control, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the AO for de novo adjudication.