Loading ITAT cases…
282 orders · Page 1 of 6
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention regarding inadequate opportunity. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for denovo adjudication, with directions to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to comply with the requirements.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control (accident, arrest, seized premises) which prevented compliance. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not grant adequate opportunity for hearing and that the matter should be restored to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention regarding inadequate opportunity. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Exemption) for denovo adjudication, with directions to provide a reasonable opportunity to the assessee to comply with the requirements.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions have been remitted to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, the penalty orders, being dependent on these additions, must also be restored to the ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass a speaking order after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions have been remitted to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, the penalty orders, being dependent on these additions, must also be restored to the ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass a speaking order after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee trust was required to obtain permission from the Charity Commissioner for loans but failed to do so timely. However, since the assessee had applied for post-facto approval, the Tribunal set aside the CIT's order and remanded the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal acknowledged the error in filing and the contention that the jurisdictional bench is in Mumbai. Consequently, the Tribunal granted the assessee's request.
The Tribunal held that while delay cannot generally be condoned without sufficient cause, if the merits of a case need examination, it should not be dismissed merely on limitation. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and directed it to condone the delay and decide the appeal on its merits.
The Tribunal held that in the interest of justice, it was proper to restore the issues on merits to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing. The assessee was directed to remain vigilant.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was in violation of Section 250(6) of the Act. While the CIT(A) can decide an appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution, they must state the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had passed the order in concurrence with the AO's order without independently examining the merits of the case. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and restored the matter to his file for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide requisite support and evidence without seeking adjournments, failing which the CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass an appropriate order. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by numerous decisions of various judicial forums, including the Jurisdictional Pune and Mumbai Tribunals. It was consistently held that interest income earned from both co-operative banks and non-co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2) of the Act, as it is attributable to the business of the assessee society. The Tribunal respectfully followed these precedents and, in the absence of any contrary material from the revenue, set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A). The deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80P(2)(a), 80P(2)(c), and 80P(2)(d) of the Act was allowed. The solitary ground of appeal raised by the assessee was accordingly allowed for both AYs.
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(E) with a direction to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to submit the requisite documents and decide the issue afresh. The assessee was directed to make submissions without seeking further adjournments.
The Tribunal, emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities and citing Supreme Court judgments, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. It condoned the delay and remanded the quantum appeals for fresh adjudication on merits, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs.10,000 and cooperating with future proceedings. Consequentially, the penalty appeal was also set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 and order under Section 148A(d) were issued without the approval of the competent authority as per Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, as more than three years had elapsed since the end of the assessment year. Following jurisdictional High Court decisions, the Tribunal quashed the notice and order.
The tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 and the subsequent assessment order passed in the name of a deceased person are null and void, relying on a Bombay High Court decision. It further found that since the investment occurred in FY 2008-09, any addition for AY 2010-11 was bad in law. The appeal was therefore allowed.
The Tribunal, emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities and citing Supreme Court judgments, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. It condoned the delay and remanded the quantum appeals for fresh adjudication on merits, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs.10,000 and cooperating with future proceedings. Consequentially, the penalty appeal was also set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 240 days, admitting the appeal. The CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the issues were remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that substantial justice is more important than procedural delay and that there was sufficient reason for the delay. Therefore, the CIT(A) was directed to condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal on merits.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance but, considering the interest of justice and the possibility of rectifying the mistake, restored the issue to the CIT(E). The assessee was granted a final opportunity to furnish details, with a direction to avoid adjournments.
The tribunal held that the CPC erred in disallowing the deductions as the assessee's case did not fall under any of the sub-clauses of Section 143(1) that permit such adjustments. The tribunal noted that being a Credit Co-operative Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, the assessee was eligible for the claimed deductions under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(c). The Assessing Officer was directed to allow these claims.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions have been remitted to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, the penalty orders, being dependent on these additions, must also be restored to the ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass a speaking order after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeals, setting aside the impugned orders of the CIT(A). The Tribunal noted that the facts of the case were not in dispute and that the issue was squarely covered in favour of the assessee by a catena of decisions from various judicial forums, including the Jurisdictional Pune and Mumbai Tribunals. It was consistently held in these precedents that interest income earned from both co-operative banks and non-co-operative banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2) of the Act, as it is attributable to the business of the assessee society. The Tribunal respectfully followed these decisions, finding no contrary material from the revenue. Consequently, the deduction claimed by the assessee under Section 80P(2)(a), 80P(2)(c), and 80P(2)(d) of the Act was allowed. The solitary ground of appeal raised by the assessee was allowed. The finding for AY 2020-21 was applied mutatis mutandis to AY 2018-19.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control (accident, arrest, seized premises) which prevented compliance. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that while an appeal can be decided ex-parte for non-prosecution, the CIT(A) must adhere to the legislative mandate under Section 250(6) of the Act, which requires stating the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had passed the order in concurrence with the Assessing Officer's order without independently examining the merits of the case. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was found to be in violation of Section 250(6) of the Act. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication on merits, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was directed to provide necessary support and evidence without seeking adjournments, failing which the CIT(A) would be at liberty to pass an appropriate order. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that since the quantum additions have been remitted to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, the penalty orders, being dependent on these additions, must also be restored to the ld. CIT(A) for de novo adjudication. The ld. CIT(A) is directed to pass a speaking order after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the CIT (Exemption) was not justified in rejecting the application for registration. Following judicial precedents, the Tribunal stated that even if an activity has an element of commerciality, it does not automatically disqualify a trust from registration, especially when the primary objects are charitable.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control (accident, arrest, seized premises) which prevented compliance. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that while the entire agricultural receipts could not be disregarded, the assessee's explanation for holding a large amount of cash was not satisfactory. Therefore, a partial disallowance of the agricultural receipts was deemed appropriate.
The Tribunal, emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities and citing Supreme Court judgments, set aside the CIT(A)'s order. It condoned the delay and remanded the quantum appeals for fresh adjudication on merits, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs.10,000 and cooperating with future proceedings. Consequentially, the penalty appeal was also set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the AO had made an ex-parte assessment due to the assessee's non-compliance. The CIT(A)/NFAC directed the AO to re-compute the capital gain by deducting the FMV of the land at the time of allotment from the sale consideration. The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue's argument that when the cost of the asset is available, there is no justification for deducting the FMV to determine capital gain. However, given that the AO's order was ex-parte and the fate of other co-owners was not available, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the AO. The AO was directed to decide the issue afresh after giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard and to substantiate their case by filing requisite details. The AO was also instructed to consider the fate of other co-partners while deciding the issue. The grounds raised by the Revenue were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the approval for issuing the notice under Section 148 was obtained from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, whereas for assessment years beyond three years, the approval should have been from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, as per Section 151.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control (accident, arrest, seized premises) which prevented compliance. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's appeal, acknowledging that some of the withdrawn cash might have been used for education and household needs. However, the Tribunal sustained an addition of Rs. 15 lakh, finding the source of the entire Rs. 40 lakh deposit not fully substantiated.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 87 days, considering the COVID-19 pandemic, and remitted the appeal back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. The CIT(A) was directed to pass a speaking order after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)/NFAC did not adjudicate the appeal on merit as required by Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the case was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a decision on merit.
The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) due to circumstances beyond the assessee's control (accident, arrest, seized premises) which prevented compliance. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal held that Section 200A was introduced with prospective effect from 01.06.2015. Therefore, levying late fees under Section 234E for the period prior to this date through an order under Section 200A is bad in law. The delay in filing the appeal should have been condoned as the primary issue was jurisdictional.
The Tribunal held that Section 200A was introduced with prospective effect from 01.06.2015. Therefore, levying late fees under Section 234E for the period prior to this date through an order under Section 200A is bad in law. The delay in filing the appeal should have been condoned as the primary issue was jurisdictional.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) had rejected the application on an ex-parte basis due to non-compliance. The assessee contended that notices were not received on the correct email ID. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(E) for a final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case.
The Tribunal held that Section 200A was introduced with prospective effect from 01.06.2015. Therefore, levying late fees under Section 234E for the period prior to this date through an order under Section 200A is bad in law. The delay in filing the appeal should have been condoned as the primary issue was jurisdictional.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in not following CBDT directions and not providing copies of reasons for reopening. The CIT(A) also failed to adjudicate the basic ground and wrongly dismissed additional evidence. Therefore, the order of the Assessing Officer was set aside for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E)'s view was hyper-technical and, following the decisions of ITAT Cochin and Surat, directed the CIT(E) to consider the application filed under the correct sub-sections and decide it on merits.
The Tribunal held that Section 200A was introduced with prospective effect from 01.06.2015. Therefore, levying late fees under Section 234E for the period prior to this date through an order under Section 200A is bad in law. The delay in filing the appeal should have been condoned as the primary issue was jurisdictional.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has the power to confirm, reduce, enhance, or annul an assessment and is obliged to decide an appeal on its merits, not dismiss it for non-prosecution. The Tribunal relied on a Bombay High Court judgment to support this.
The Tribunal held that Section 200A was introduced with prospective effect from 01.06.2015. Therefore, levying late fees under Section 234E for the period prior to this date through an order under Section 200A is bad in law. The delay in filing the appeal should have been condoned as the primary issue was jurisdictional.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's grounds related to the Transfer Pricing adjustment method, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision. However, the Tribunal allowed the Revenue's ground concerning a double deduction claimed by the assessee on actuarial valuation, sustaining that disallowance.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had made elaborate submissions and filed a paper book, which was not rebutted by the Revenue. Setting aside the order of the CIT(E), the Tribunal remanded the matter for denovo adjudication, directing the CIT(E) to provide an opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal, relying on various High Court and ITAT judgments, held that since more than three years had elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year (A.Y. 2017-18), the sanction for initiating reassessment proceedings must come from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax as per Section 151(ii). As the approval was incorrectly granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, the notice under Section 148 and the order under Section 148A(d) were deemed ab-initio void and were quashed.
The Tribunal held that it would be judicially expedient and in the interest of justice to restore the matters to the file of the CIT(E). The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed it could substantiate its case with the requisite details and documentary evidence if given an opportunity. The CIT(E) was directed to consider the assessee's applications afresh on merits, after affording one more opportunity of being heard. The assessee was directed to provide the required details without seeking further adjournment unless for sufficient cause. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. The CIT(E)'s order rejecting the application under Section 12A(1)(ac)(iii) and cancelling the provisional registration was set aside. Similarly, the CIT(E)'s order rejecting the application under Section 80G(5)(iii) and cancelling the provisional approval was also set aside and restored for fresh adjudication.