Loading ITAT cases…
239 orders · Page 4 of 5
The Tribunal, applying principles from the Supreme Court, condoned the delay in filing the appeals with the CIT(A), acknowledging the reasonable cause presented by the assessee. It remitted all penalty and quantum addition matters back to the ld.CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits, setting aside the previous orders.
With no objection from the Ld. DR, the tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as 'Withdrawn'.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have called for a remand report from the AO before allowing relief, especially since the assessment order was ex-parte and based on information related to an old PAN. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to decide the appeal afresh.
The Tribunal, applying principles from the Supreme Court, condoned the delay in filing the appeals with the CIT(A), acknowledging the reasonable cause presented by the assessee. It remitted all penalty and quantum addition matters back to the ld.CIT(A) for de novo adjudication on merits, setting aside the previous orders.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had complied with the notices and should have been given a further opportunity to explain its case. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing, with a directive for the assessee to comply with future notices.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC by the assessee (496 days) was due to reasonable cause, such as the director absconding and the business closing down. Therefore, the delay ought to have been condoned. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with the initial notices and that the CIT should have provided at least one more opportunity for the assessee to explain their case. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that both the Assessment Order and the First Appellate Order were passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-participation. Recognizing the need for justice, the Tribunal set aside the findings of the CIT(A)/NFAC and remitted the issues to the CIT(A)/NFAC for denovo adjudication, providing the assessee with another opportunity.
The Tribunal restored the issue back to the CIT(A) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case, considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice.
The Tribunal found that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to present necessary details, especially concerning permission for loans. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(E) for a fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's plea for another opportunity, restored all issues to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after hearing submissions and considering evidence. The assessee was also requested to attend hearings promptly.
The Tribunal deemed it proper to provide the assessee trust with one more opportunity. It restored the matter of the Section 80G(5) approval application to the file of the CIT (Exemption) for re-adjudication, directing the assessee to furnish all necessary details and refrain from unnecessary adjournments.
The Tribunal noted that the delay in filing the appeal fell within the Covid-19 pandemic period, during which the Supreme Court had extended limitation periods. Citing these judgments, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication on merits after providing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with the initial notices and that the CIT should have provided at least one more opportunity for the assessee to explain their case. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, setting aside the order of the CIT(A) on both issues. For the interest income from PDCC Bank, the Tribunal followed its co-ordinate bench decisions and held that such income is eligible for deduction under Section 80P of the Act. Regarding the commission income from MSEB, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had deleted this addition in the assessee's own case for a preceding assessment year based on jurisdictional High Court decisions. The Tribunal also referred to its decision in Vijkamgar Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., which held that the activity of collecting bills for MSEB is akin to banking activity and eligible for deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). Therefore, the Tribunal held the assessee is entitled to relief under Section 80P for this income. The Tribunal also found merit in the assessee's alternate plea for allowing proportionate expenses attributable to earning such commission income. The grounds relating to interest and commission income were allowed.
The Tribunal, following consistent past decisions, held that interest earned by a co-operative society from deposits with co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) as co-operative banks are considered co-operative societies. It therefore overturned the CIT(A)'s order and allowed the deduction for the interest income.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) by taking a liberal approach in the interest of justice. The appeal was restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for necessary adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the Ld. CIT and remanded the matter back. The assessee was directed to provide necessary documents, and the Ld. CIT was instructed to decide the application afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the error in mentioning the wrong section code was a curable defect. Following previous decisions with similar circumstances, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Rs. 6,69,44,047/- claimed as deduction under Section 57 of the Act by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was not justified. The Tribunal found that the assessee had submitted documentary evidence, including sanction letters and certificates from the School Education Department, Government of Maharashtra, to substantiate its claim for exemption under Section 10(23C) and to establish the nexus between the income from salary grants and salary expenditure. These documents, which were available with the AO and CIT(A), were not considered. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee's claim for exemption under Section 10(23C) was supported by its audited Income and Expenditure Account. Regarding the procedural issue of filing the return in Form ITR-5 instead of ITR-7, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that it was a bonafide mistake by the tax consultant, especially since the CPC had processed the return and no new data was furnished in the intended correct form. The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO with a direction to verify the assessee's claim afresh after due verification of all documents and evidence, and to decide the matter on merits. The assessee was granted adequate opportunity of hearing. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the error in selecting the wrong clause was a curable defect and an inadvertent typographical mistake. Following precedent and considering recent CBDT circulars, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) due to the assessee's illiteracy and lack of awareness of technicalities. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the error in mentioning the wrong clause in the application was a curable defect. Following precedent, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT to consider the application under the correct clause.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal as they intended to settle the dispute under the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal determined that the incorrect sub-clause mentioned in the application was a curable technical defect. It set aside the CIT, Exemption's order and remanded the matter back, directing the CIT to treat the application as if filed under sub-clause (iii) of Section 12A(1)(ac) and to decide it on merits after providing the assessee a fresh opportunity of hearing.
The assessee requested to withdraw the appeal as they have opted for the Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. The Learned DR had no objection. The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal request.
The Tribunal held that the error in mentioning the wrong section code was a technical and curable defect. Following precedent, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to amend the application.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground regarding the deletion of disallowance under Section 14A. The CIT(A) had deleted the addition of Rs. 22,83,215/- by observing that the assessee had sufficient non-interest bearing funds (Share capital and Reserves & Surplus totaling Rs. 208,81,14,181/-) to cover the investments of Rs. 65,09,34,047/-, following the jurisdictional Bombay High Court decision in CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities and Power Ltd. and Pune ITAT decisions. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order. Regarding depreciation on luxury cars, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s deletion of the disallowance. The CIT(A) had relied on the Gujarat High Court decision in Sayaji Iron and Engineering Company and the Pune ITAT decision in Hindumal Balmukund Investment Co Pvt Ltd. The Tribunal noted that the AO's reasoning for AY 2018-19 was the same as for AY 2017-18, and the CIT(A) had deleted the disallowance for both years using the same reasoning. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground concerning Section 80IA(4) deduction. The Tribunal noted that this was a recurring issue consistently decided in favour of the assessee by the CIT(A) and Tribunal, treating the assessee as a developer eligible for deduction. The Tribunal followed its own decision for AY 2017-18, where it had allowed the deduction, treating the assessee as a developer. The mere filing of an appeal by the Revenue was not a ground to take a contrary view in the absence of a contrary decision from the jurisdictional High Court. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's ground.
The Tribunal noted that the CPC order dated 02.05.2023 was not on record and therefore, restored the issue to the file of the JAO for verification of the prepaid tax credit allowed and to decide in accordance with law.
Citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's pronouncement on prioritizing substantial justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order. It directed the CIT(A) to condone the entire delay and decide the appeal on merits, providing the assessee with a proper hearing.
The Tribunal found that the typographical error in the application was a curable defect. It set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter, directing the CIT to consider the existing application as filed under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and provide the assessee with a fresh opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal restored the issues concerning disallowance of write-back provision for restructured advances and standard assets back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) has no power to set aside matters, but the Tribunal does possess such power.
The Tribunal held that the failure to add back the amounts was due to an oversight and not intentional misrepresentation or suppression of facts. The penalty was not sustainable as the relevant facts were already on record and the notice for penalty was silent on the specific limb of Section 270A.
The Tribunal held that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance, following a Supreme Court decision where similar transactions were considered to have a reasonable cause. Therefore, the penalty was set aside.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision regarding the profit on sale of investments, finding that the HTM securities were stock-in-trade and valuation losses were allowable. The Tribunal also restored the issue of deduction under Section 36(1)(viia) to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that expenditure incurred outside India is not eligible for weighted deduction under Section 35(2AB). It also clarified that the eligibility for weighted deduction is not restricted to amounts approved by the prescribed authority, and intangible capital expenditure is eligible for weighted deduction based on earlier guidelines.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the prescribed monetary limits and grounds raised were not sustainable. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back to the AO for fresh adjudication. This was due to the assessee's failure to provide necessary details to the AO and the AO's failure to provide a remand report to the CIT(A).
The Tribunal found that the assessee had a 'reasonable cause' for non-compliance with the Section 142(1) notices, citing the COVID period, non-functional e-portal, and the assessee's posting in a remote area without proper communication facilities. Applying Section 273B, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) was not justified and directed its cancellation.
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be cryptic and lacking detailed reasoning for admitting additional evidence and deleting the addition. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s revisional order under Section 263, ruling that the AO's reassessment order was indeed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The AO had failed to apply his mind to the information in the return, including declared interest income and loss, and had not conducted proper inquiries into the genuineness of receipts as defined under Section 11. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order de novo after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that IPO expenses for an abandoned project, where no enduring benefit accrued, should be treated as revenue expenditure. They found that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance based solely on the tax audit report's qualification.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee filed a revised return declaring the additional income before the notice under Section 148 was issued, and the revised return was filed within the prescribed time limit under Section 139(5), there was no concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the assessee institute is substantially financed by the Central Government, as evidenced by a significant grant received in prior years which was invested, and the interest earned on this investment constituted more than 50% of the current year's gross receipts. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to the exemption.
The Tribunal held that the penalty levied under Section 270A was not in accordance with law because the Assessing Officer failed to specify the exact clause or limb under which the penalty was initiated in the penalty notice or assessment order. Consequently, the penalty was quashed.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating on merits. The Tribunal, citing legal precedents, decided that the issues on merit for both appeal years deserve to be remitted back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo adjudication, considering the previous assessment orders.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(E)'s revisional order under Section 263, ruling that the AO's reassessment order was indeed erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue. The AO had failed to apply his mind to the information in the return, including declared interest income and loss, and had not conducted proper inquiries into the genuineness of receipts as defined under Section 11. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh assessment order de novo after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudicating on merits. The Tribunal, citing legal precedents, decided that the issues on merit for both appeal years deserve to be remitted back to the CIT(A)/NFAC for de novo adjudication, considering the previous assessment orders.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee, a Senior Citizen suffering from illness, had paid some advance tax and self-assessment tax, and the shortfall was later paid. Recognizing the discretionary power under the proviso to Section 249(4) and taking a lenient view, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back for a decision on merits, with the assessee to provide necessary documents.
The Tribunal held that if seized documents are relied upon for undisclosed income, the expenditure entries therein should also be believed. The assessee's argument that cash receipts could not be added without allowing corresponding business expenditure was considered.