Loading ITAT cases…
217 orders · Page 3 of 5
The Tribunal noted that the assessee had complied with initial notices. Considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the Rs. 19 lakhs cash deposit as advances received from customers for the sale of flats. These transactions were corroborated by registered sale deeds and admitted before the Registering Authority, and were uncontroverted by the Revenue.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was a salaried employee who completely relied on his tax consultant for filing returns. The consultant engaged in fraudulent practices, which the assessee was unaware of. Upon discovering the excess deductions, the assessee promptly contacted another consultant and filed a correct return with interest. Therefore, the penalty under Section 270A was not justified.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee desired to withdraw the appeal and the Department had no objection. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication, noting that the CIT(A) had not delved into the merits of the case. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to pass an order in accordance with law.
The Tribunal held that the mistake in filing the application under the wrong sub-section was a technical/typographical error and curable. The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has to decide the appeal on merits and does not have the power to dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside.
The Tribunal held that the penalty was not justified as the assessee was unaware of the excess deductions claimed by his tax consultant, who acted fraudulently. The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench decision and directed the AO to delete the penalty.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had complied with initial notices but faced issues with subsequent notices, allegedly due to a missed communication. The Tribunal, considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found that the assessee had complied with initial notices but faced issues with subsequent notices, allegedly due to a missed communication. The Tribunal, considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication, directing the CIT to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
On Ground No. 2 of the assessee's appeal (Section 80G disallowance), the Tribunal held that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of a co-ordinate bench in the assessee's own case for AY 2021-22, which relied on the decision in Credit Suisse Services (India) Private Limited and Allegi Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. The Tribunal found that donations forming part of CSR expenses are eligible for deduction under Section 80G. Therefore, the disallowance of Rs. 67,87,728/- was directed to be allowed. Regarding Ground No. 3 of the assessee's appeal (Section 35(2AB) disallowance), the Tribunal, while noting the assessee's prayer to admit additional evidence (Form 3CL) and for deduction under Section 35(1), did not provide a specific finding or decision on this ground in the provided excerpt. Regarding Ground No. 4 of the assessee's appeal (Forex gain), the Tribunal did not provide a specific finding or decision on this ground in the provided excerpt. On the Revenue's appeal (Grounds 1, 2, and 3 concerning 80IA and 80IC deductions), the Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC was justified in allowing these deductions. The Tribunal noted that the AO had raised a specific query under Section 143(2) regarding these deductions, to which the assessee provided complete details. Despite this, the AO disallowed the deductions without discussing them in the assessment order, which the Tribunal found unjustified. The Tribunal also noted that these deductions had been claimed and allowed in preceding assessment years. Accordingly, the Revenue's appeal on this issue was dismissed, confirming the CIT(A)/NFAC's order.
The Tribunal allowed both appeals. For AY 2016-17, the Tribunal noted that the AO's penalty order was ambiguous, citing both 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income' and 'concealment of income' without clear distinction. The Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench decision in Sunil Chunilal Kumavat vs. ITO, which, under identical circumstances where a tax consultant's fraud led to excess deductions and the assessee was unaware, deleted the penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal found that the assessee, a salaried employee from a technical background, was entirely dependent on the consultant, who acted with hidden interests. The assessee had disclosed correct income and paid tax promptly upon discovering the fraud. Therefore, the penalty of Rs. 36,000 was directed to be deleted. For AY 2017-18, the Tribunal followed a co-ordinate bench decision in Shashikant Sukdeo Ambekar, which deleted a penalty under Section 270A when the AO failed to identify the specific clauses ('a' to 'f') of Section 270A(9) in the show-cause notice. The Tribunal found that the notice issued to the assessee did not mention these particulars. Consequently, the penalty of Rs. 66,332 was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition. The assessee had provided quantitative details during remand proceedings, and the increased turnover was mainly due to wholesale trading where profit margins are lower. The AO's estimation was based on assumptions, not concrete evidence.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the co-operative society from its investments in co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). This decision was based on previous rulings in the assessee's own case and other similar cases, and the fact that the revision order invoking Section 263 was already quashed.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the co-operative society from its investments in co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). This decision was based on previous rulings in the assessee's own case and other similar cases, and the fact that the revision order invoking Section 263 was already quashed.
The Tribunal noted that the Revenue's representative had no objection to the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal permitted the assessee to withdraw the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the mistake in filing the application under the wrong sub-section was a technical/typographical error and curable. The Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee missed a subsequent notice due to the short response window. In the interest of justice, it set aside the CIT (Exemption)'s order and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. The Tribunal directed the CIT (Exemption) to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing, while also instructing the assessee to comply with all notices without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal held that the lower authorities did not adjudicate on the additional grounds raised by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer to verify the eligibility for exemption under Section 10(23C)(iiiad) and to examine the claim of expenditure against gross receipts.
The Tribunal held that the interest income earned by the co-operative society from its investments in co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(d). This decision was based on previous rulings in the assessee's own case and other similar cases, and the fact that the revision order invoking Section 263 was already quashed.
The Tribunal held that CSR spends are eligible for deduction under Section 80G, following a co-ordinate bench decision. It also confirmed the CIT(A)'s direction to allow deductions under Sections 80IA and 80IC, noting that the AO had not discussed their disallowance in the assessment order despite a specific query being raised.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was a salaried employee who completely relied on his tax consultant for filing returns. The consultant engaged in fraudulent practices, which the assessee was unaware of. Upon discovering the excess deductions, the assessee promptly contacted another consultant and filed a correct return with interest. Therefore, the penalty under Section 270A was not justified.
The Tribunal held that the mistake in mentioning the section code was a curable defect and that the assessee should be given an opportunity to rectify it. Following previous decisions, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order.
The Tribunal noted that the initial assessment orders and the CIT(A) orders were passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance. Given no objection from the Revenue, the Tribunal remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the error in mentioning the wrong sub-clause was a curable defect and, following precedents, allowed the appeal. The matter was remanded to the CIT to consider the application under the correct section after providing an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the incorrect selection of a section code was an inadvertent mistake and not fatal to the application. It was found that the CIT(E) should have granted an opportunity to rectify the error.
The Tribunal found that a coordinate bench had previously remanded a similar matter (12AA registration) for the same assessee. Following this precedent, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the 80G registration issue back to the CIT for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that a further opportunity should have been granted. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the error in mentioning the wrong section code was a curable defect. Following precedent from similar cases, the Tribunal decided to set aside the CIT's order.
The Tribunal held that the error in mentioning the wrong clause was a curable defect and the rejection of the application by the CIT(E) was not justified. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration.
The Tribunal noted that the initial assessment orders and the CIT(A) orders were passed ex-parte due to the assessee's non-appearance. Given no objection from the Revenue, the Tribunal remanded the matters back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to unexplained cash expenditure and disallowance of agricultural income. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had correctly considered the evidence presented for these items.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that a further opportunity should have been granted. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A) orders were passed ex-parte without adjudicating on merits. The appeals were remitted to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal observed that the appellant responded to the first notice but not the second. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remanded both appeals back to the file of the CIT (Exemption) for de novo adjudication, granting the appellant one final opportunity to submit all requisite details and be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee's illness. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the issue to the CIT(A)'s file for adjudication on merits, directing the CIT(A) to provide the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the appellant was not afforded a proper opportunity to present its case. Therefore, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the appellant.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A) orders were passed ex-parte without adjudicating on merits. The appeals were remitted to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal in limine without discussing the merits, which is contrary to the settled position of law. Citing a High Court decision, the Tribunal held that the CIT(A) is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an ex-parte order. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to comply with the second notice issued by the CIT(E). However, considering the facts and in the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for one final opportunity to the appellant.
The Tribunal observed that the appellant responded to the first notice but not the second. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal remanded both appeals back to the file of the CIT (Exemption) for de novo adjudication, granting the appellant one final opportunity to submit all requisite details and be heard.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A) orders were passed ex-parte without adjudicating on merits. The appeals were remitted to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal, noting the appellant's non-compliance to a second notice, decided to restore the matter to the CIT(E). It directed the CIT(E) to provide one final opportunity to the appellant to submit all requisite details and decide the issue afresh on merits, with a condition that the appellant must comply without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal condoned the delay, finding merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A) orders were passed ex-parte without adjudicating on merits. The appeals were remitted to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(Exemption), directing that the appellant be given an opportunity to substantiate its case by filing requisite details. The appellant was also instructed to make submissions without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was primarily engaged in transportation and earning commission, not retail trading. The AO's estimation of 8% net profit was considered excessive and not applicable to the assessee's business model. The Tribunal applied a net profit rate of 1.50% to the turnover.
The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, decided to give the assessee an opportunity to present their case. The findings of the CIT(Exemption) were set aside, and the appeal was remitted back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee deserved to succeed on grounds 1, 2, and 3. It was observed that the assessee filed its income tax return within the stipulated time. Although the audit report in Form 10B was uploaded late (on 30.01.2023), the UDIN number was generated on 24.09.2019, indicating that the audit procedure was completed and the report was ready for upload. The assessee claimed technical glitches prevented timely uploading. The Tribunal noted that the audit report was available during the first appellate proceedings and was provided to the CIT(A). Following the precedent set in Kokan Kala Shikshan Vikaas Sanstha Vs. DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru (ITA No.645/PUN/2021), the Tribunal found that the delay was unintentional and beyond the assessee's control, and since the procedural compliance was subsequently made good, the exemption under Section 11 should not be denied. The CIT(A)'s findings were set aside, and grounds 1, 2, and 3 were allowed. Regarding ground no. 4, concerning the taxation of net income, the Tribunal deemed it academic as grounds 1, 2, and 3 were allowed. The Assessing Officer was directed to grant the claim of exemption under Section 11.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a charitable trust with no defined individual shares for its beneficiaries, should be taxed at normal rates and not the MMR. The Tribunal followed CBDT Circular No. 320 and various judicial precedents.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments, noting the peculiar situation where penalty appeals were dismissed for delay without deciding the quantum appeals. It held that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations and that the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeals solely on the ground of delay.