Loading ITAT cases…
282 orders · Page 2 of 6
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) rejected the assessee's applications for registration under Section 12A and approval under Section 80G due to non-compliance with notices and lack of evidence regarding the genuineness of charitable activities. The assessee argued that it was not given adequate opportunity and requested the matter be set aside for a fresh adjudication. The revenue conceded to this proposition. Considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored both matters to the file of the CIT(E) to decide the applications afresh on merits after affording one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee was directed to provide requisite details without seeking further adjournments unless for sufficient cause. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that filing Form 67 is a procedural and directory requirement, not mandatory. Therefore, the disallowance of FTC solely on the ground of delayed filing of Form 67 is not sustainable, especially when the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) overrides the Act.
The ITAT, following a Special Bench decision, ruled that for Private Discretionary Trusts whose income is taxable at MMR, surcharge should be computed with reference to the slab rates prescribed in the Finance Act under the heading "Surcharge on Income Tax," and not at the Maximum Marginal Rate. The Assessing Officer was directed to recompute the surcharge accordingly.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and restored the issue to the file of the CIT(Exemption). The CIT(Exemption) was directed to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to submit the required details and decide the matter afresh.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While the assessee admitted to not furnishing complete details, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO to allow the assessee to furnish necessary evidence. The findings of the CIT(A) were set aside.
The Tribunal, following the latest High Court order, has set aside its previous orders and is now adjudicating the appeal on its merits. The legal grounds regarding reassessment proceedings and approval for reopening were dismissed.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and, in the interest of justice, restored the matter to the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to present all requisite details and documentary evidence. Both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and, in the interest of justice, restored the matter to the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for fresh adjudication. The assessee was granted one final opportunity to present all requisite details and documentary evidence. Both appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.
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 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 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, 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 restoring the matter to the CIT(E) for a fresh decision on merits would be in the interest of justice and fair play, allowing the assessee one more opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal held that the error in mentioning the wrong clause in the application was a technical defect and that the application should be treated as filed under the correct clause. The matter was restored to the CIT(Exemption) for decision on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and restored the issue to the file of the CIT(Exemption). The CIT(Exemption) was directed to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to submit the required details and decide the matter afresh.
The Tribunal held that since the Income and Expenditure Account showed a deficit, there could not be any tax liability as calculated by the CPC. The Tribunal allowed the alternative ground raised by the assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal observed that the CIT(E) provided insufficient time for the assessee to respond. In the interest of natural justice, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication, instructing the CIT(E) to provide the assessee with adequate opportunity of hearing. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The tribunal observed that the assessee failed to make proper compliance in satisfying the CIT(E) about the genuineness of its activities and compliance with other laws. However, considering the larger interest of justice, the tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal condoned the 333-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) after considering the principles of natural justice and relying on a Supreme Court judgment. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the entire matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order after affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had made partial compliance but failed to furnish all required details. Taking a liberal approach and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had not dealt with the merits of the case and that there was an apparent mistake as admitted by the AO. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merits.
The Tribunal, considering the liberal approach and the interest of justice, decided to provide one more opportunity to the assessee. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(E) for a fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal observed that both the assessment and impugned orders were ex-parte, passed without granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Considering the substantial additions made on amounts not received by the assessee, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication after providing a proper opportunity of hearing. The finding of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that substantial justice is more important than procedural delay and that grave injustice would be caused to the assessee by not condoning the delay. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the withdrawal of the appeal as per the assessee's request, dismissing it as withdrawn. A provision was made for a miscellaneous application if the Vivad se Vishwas Scheme application was not accepted.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by the cooperative society from deposits in various banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. It distinguished the Supreme Court's Totagar's case and followed precedents from the Andhra Pradesh & Telangana High Court and ITAT Pune, directing the Assessing Officer to allow the claimed deduction.
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 176 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The case was remitted back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to decide the issue of penalty levied u/s 270A on merits after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from deposits is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, as it is an integral part of the society's business. The Tribunal followed various judicial precedents, including decisions of the High Court and ITAT.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for AY 2014-15, deleting the addition as the AO erred in taxing the same transaction in two assessment years. For AY 2012-13, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, specifically to consider the application of provisos to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) and the Fair Market Value as on 25.05.2007 for LTCG calculation, ensuring a speaking order and proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding sufficient cause and taking a liberal approach. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(E)'s order and remitted the issue back for denovo adjudication, granting the appellant an opportunity to present its case.
The Tribunal held that substantial justice is more important than procedural technicalities. Grave injustice was caused to the assessee by not condoning the delay. The order of the CIT(A) was set aside for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear for hearing and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without merits. However, considering the new faceless assessment procedures and the Bombay High Court's judgment, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not provide adequate opportunity to the appellant to explain the discrepancies and demonstrate the genuineness of its activities. Therefore, the matter was remanded for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the addition made under Section 68 was not maintainable as the assessee provided complete details of the members who deposited the SBN. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions where similar additions were deleted.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for AY 2014-15, deleting the addition as the AO erred in taxing the same transaction in two assessment years. For AY 2012-13, the case was remanded to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, specifically to consider the application of provisos to Section 56(2)(vii)(b) and the Fair Market Value as on 25.05.2007 for LTCG calculation, ensuring a speaking order and proper opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay after considering the reasons provided by the assessee and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. The Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, as the earlier appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal, respectfully following the ITAT Mumbai Special Bench decision (in which the assessee was an intervener), held that surcharge for Private Discretionary Trusts whose income is chargeable at MMR should not be applied at MMR. Instead, surcharge must be computed having reference to the slab rates prescribed in the Finance Act under the heading 'Surcharge on Income Tax'. The Assessing Officer was directed to recompute the surcharge accordingly.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) did not provide adequate opportunity to the appellant to explain the discrepancies and demonstrate the genuineness of its activities. Therefore, the matter was remanded for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that since the CIT(A) did not adjudicate the grounds of appeal that arose from the Section 143(3) assessment order, the issue should be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay after considering the reasons provided by the assessee and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. The Tribunal restored the matters to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, as the earlier appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that the delay in filing Form 10-IC was a procedural issue and should not deny the substantive benefit of the new tax regime. Following CBDT Circular No. 19/2023, which condoned such delays under specific conditions, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's claim.
The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice was issued beyond the statutory time limit prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Rajeev Bansal. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings are quashed.
The Tribunal held that the excess stock found during the survey was business income and had been rightly offered as such by the assessee. Therefore, the lower authorities erred in treating it as income from other sources and applying Section 115BBE.
The Tribunal held that filing of the audit report in Form 10B is a procedural requirement and not mandatory. The delay in uploading the report was condoned, and the Assessing Officer was directed to grant the benefit of Section 11 if the assessee is otherwise eligible.
The Tribunal held that the ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) was unjustified as the assessee missed notices and could not appear. The Tribunal decided to set aside the ex-parte order and remand the matter back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, considering the facts and interest of justice, decided not to go into the merits of the case. It remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) to reconsider the appeal after examining additional evidence from the assessee and a remand report from the AO.
The Tribunal held that the CIT correctly rejected the application as the assessee failed to provide sufficient details regarding its activities, donations, and compliance with legal requirements. The grounds raised by the assessee were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not providing the AO an opportunity to verify additional evidence submitted by the assessee, thereby contravening Rule 46A. The tribunal decided to set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from deposits is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, as it is an integral part of the society's business. The Tribunal followed various judicial precedents, including decisions of the High Court and ITAT.