Loading ITAT cases…
282 orders · Page 6 of 6
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was cryptic and that the AO should not have disregarded the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) method chosen by the assessee without proper justification. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the first appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A)/NFAC due to a 232-day delay without condoning it. The assessee argued that notices were not properly served, leading to an ex-parte order. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remanded the matter back, directing the CIT(A) to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's request to withdraw the appeals, noting that the Departmental Representative had no objection. It was clarified that the assessee could file miscellaneous applications for recalling if their scheme applications were rejected.
The Tribunal held that while the AO's order might be considered erroneous due to non-verification of WIP, it was not prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. This is because showing a higher WIP resulted in higher reported profit and consequently, higher tax paid by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee had filed two appeals (one electronic and one physical) against the same order, the present appeal (ITA No.543/PUN/2025) was a duplicate. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the deduction claimed under Section 80G on account of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) expenditure deserves to be allowed. This is based on previous rulings by the Pune and Bangalore benches of the ITAT.
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)/NFAC erred in not properly deciding the legal ground raised by the assessee and that penalty proceedings could be initiated simultaneously with reassessment proceedings. However, the Tribunal noted procedural lapses in the penalty order.
The Tribunal held that substantial justice should be preferred over technical considerations, especially in cases of non-deliberate delay. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC was condoned, and the appeal was restored.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) has a mandatory duty to decide the grounds of appeal on merits with reasons, as per Section 250 of the Income Tax Act. The CIT(A) cannot dismiss an appeal for non-prosecution.
The Tribunal held that while the opening cash balance reconciliation was not fully supported by evidence, regular rental income provided some cash in hand. The Tribunal allowed partial relief by reducing the addition to Rs. 2,50,000/-, considering approximate household drawings.
The Tribunal held that while the assessee did not conclusively prove carrying on a money lending business, Rs. 10.00 lakh of the bad debt claim was allowed as it was offered to tax in AY 2005-06. The remaining Rs. 11.20 lakh was disallowed.
The Tribunal held that the ex-gratia amount received by the assessee was capital in nature and not taxable. Following previous decisions, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee was not properly informed of the assessment order. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted both appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications solely based on the lack of prior permission from the Charity Commissioner for a loan. The Tribunal found that the assessee's activities were charitable in nature and that the loan was a temporary, interest-free unsecured loan.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in rejecting the applications solely based on the lack of prior permission from the Charity Commissioner for a loan. The Tribunal found that the assessee's activities were charitable in nature and that the loan was a temporary, interest-free unsecured loan.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, finding that the assessee was not properly informed of the assessment order. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted both appeals back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While the assessee raised grounds on merits, the primary contention was the failure to provide a fair opportunity by the CIT(A). The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal, finding that no fair opportunity was granted to the assessee, set aside the order of the CIT(E). The Tribunal granted one more opportunity to the assessee to present its case and furnish necessary details for registration.
The Tribunal condoned the 291-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A), citing the COVID-19 pandemic and the assessee's attempt to avail benefits from a Board Notification as reasonable causes. The case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was denied deduction under Section 80IA due to a delay in filing the return. While acknowledging the pending condonation of delay application and the potential lack of proper opportunity, the Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for necessary adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to comply with the requirements. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merits, and the provisional registration was restored pending this decision. The issues related to both Section 12A and 80G were set aside.
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was defective due to the non-filing of the impugned order and the continuous non-appearance of the assessee. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as defective.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of Rs. 60,480 for delayed payment of employee's contribution to PF was justified as per Section 36(1)(va). However, the disallowance of Rs. 5,00,000 forfeited as a deposit for a contract was treated as a business expenditure and allowed. The ad-hoc disallowance of 5% on labour and machinery charges was also set aside. The claim for interest on TDS was disallowed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee was not given adequate opportunity to comply with the requirements. The matter was restored to the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication on merits, and the provisional registration was restored pending this decision. The issues related to both Section 12A and 80G were set aside.
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee and remitted the issues back to the CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The CIT(A) was directed to call for a remand report from the AO and decide the issues on merits, ensuring proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the interest income addition, relying on Supreme Court precedents (Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.) that cooperative societies' interest from other co-operative societies is eligible for deduction. However, the Tribunal remanded the depreciation addition issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication due to the cryptic nature of the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal observed that the assessee was not granted a reasonable opportunity of being heard by the CIT(E). Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the file of the CIT(E) for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and restored the issue to the file of the CIT(E) for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to provide full cooperation and granted a reasonable opportunity.
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-compliance. Considering the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeal to the CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication on merits, ensuring an opportunity of being heard.
The Tribunal held that the delay of one day in depositing the employee's contribution to PF was due to technical glitches on the PF portal. Following previous decisions in similar cases, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the deletion of the addition.
The Tribunal held that the delay of one day in depositing the employees' contribution to PF was due to technical glitches on the PF organization's portal. Following previous decisions of the Tribunal, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)'s decision. It confirmed that the CPC possessed the power under Section 143(1) to make adjustments for incorrect claims apparent from the return for AY 2015-16. The Tribunal also affirmed the direction to the Assessing Officer to verify TDS compliance under Section 40(a)(ia) for the interest expenditure, allowing the claim subject to such verification.