Loading ITAT cases…
290 orders · Page 3 of 6
The Tribunal noted that it was an admitted fact that the assessee did not respond to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(E) despite sufficient opportunities. The assessee's counsel submitted that this non-compliance was not intentional but due to circumstances beyond its control and that it could substantiate its case if given an opportunity. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's submission that its application for regular registration under Section 12AB was rejected, and a co-ordinate bench had set aside a similar issue. Considering the interest of justice and the assessee's plea for an opportunity to present its case, the Tribunal decided to set aside the impugned order to the file of the Ld. CIT(E). The Ld. CIT(E) was directed to re-adjudicate the matter afresh after providing the assessee with an opportunity of being heard and allowing it to furnish the requisite details. The issue of deletion of addition was not specifically addressed as it was part of a general prayer.
The Tribunal observed that notices were sent to an email ID not mentioned in Form No. 35, and some notices were issued during the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal observed that the Form 3CL was obtained subsequent to the assessment and initial appellate proceedings. In light of this new evidence, and to ensure justice, the Tribunal remanded the issue back to the Assessing Officer to verify the Form 3CL and re-adjudicate the claim for deduction under Section 35(2AB) in accordance with the law.
The Tribunal held that since the sale deed was registered in FY 2011-12 (AY 2012-13), the amount could not be taxed in AY 2011-12. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was directed to be deleted.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and noted that the assessee did not respond to the second notice from the CIT(Exemption). However, considering the interest of justice and the assessee's request for an opportunity, the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for a final opportunity.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on grounds of delay without considering the assessee's contention of not receiving the assessment order. The Tribunal found that the service of notice and assessment order is crucial and that the Revenue failed to provide evidence of such service.
The Tribunal held that the assessee, being a Co-operative Credit Society engaged in providing credit facilities to its members, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act, following various judicial precedents.
The Tribunal held that the payment received by the assessee was voluntary and ex-gratia, not compensation in lieu of termination of employment. Therefore, it was not taxable as 'profits in lieu of salary' under Section 17(3)(i).
The Tribunal held that the additional income declared during the survey should be treated as business income and taxed at normal rates. The CIT(A) was correct in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer under Section 115BBE.
The Tribunal, following precedents from the Bombay High Court, condoned the delay of 2984 days, directing the CIT(A) to decide the appeal on merits after providing an opportunity to the assessee. The delay was attributed to pursuing an alternate remedy and the Assessing Officer's inaction.
The Tribunal held that for private discretionary trusts with income chargeable at the maximum rate, the surcharge should be computed based on the slab rates prescribed in the Finance Act. For income between Rs. 1 crore and Rs. 2 crores, the surcharge is 15%.
The Tribunal observed that notices were sent to an email ID not mentioned in Form No. 35, and some notices were issued during the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal noted that the first appellate order was passed ex-parte. Considering the totality of the facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
The Tribunal observed that notices were sent to an email ID not mentioned in Form No. 35, and some notices were issued during the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals and noted that the assessee did not respond to the second notice from the CIT(Exemption). However, considering the interest of justice and the assessee's request for an opportunity, the matters were restored to the file of the CIT(Exemption) for a final opportunity.
The Tribunal observed that notices were sent to an email ID not mentioned in Form No. 35, and some notices were issued during the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the issues to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal, setting aside the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC and directing the AO to delete the addition. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments, particularly referencing the decision in CIT vs. Ajit Kumar Bose (Calcutta High Court) and ITO vs. Avirook Sen (Delhi Bench of ITAT). These judgments held that ex-gratia compensation, paid voluntarily without any obligation on the employer, is not compensation in terms of Section 17(3)(i) and would not amount to profits in lieu of salary. The Tribunal noted that other employees of Pfizer Healthcare India Pvt. Ltd. in similar situations had their compensation treated as capital in nature by the AO, which had attained finality. The Tribunal concluded that the payment received by the assessee was voluntary and not obligatory, thus not taxable as profits in lieu of salary. Grounds 1 to 7 raised by the assessee were allowed.
The Tribunal noted that the ex-parte order was passed due to the sudden demise of the assessee's counsel, which prevented representation. Considering this, the Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order and remanded the matter back to the CIT(A)/NFAC.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance despite multiple opportunities. Considering the totality of facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(E) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to submit details, after which the CIT(E) should decide the matter.
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments. It was noted that the AO passed an ex-parte assessment order and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the merits, refusing to admit additional evidence on technical grounds. The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's contention that non-compliance was not intentional and there was a reasonable cause due to communication issues. In the interest of justice and fair play, the Tribunal decided to restore the matter to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to appear before the AO with supporting documentary evidence without seeking adjournments, and to provide correct contact details. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes.
The Tribunal held that the notice u/s 148 and the order u/s 148A(d) were issued without the proper sanctioning authority as required by Section 151 of the Act, given that more than three years had elapsed from the end of the assessment year. Citing decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and ITAT Pune, the Tribunal found the legal ground raised by the assessee to be valid.
The Tribunal granted the assessee one more opportunity to furnish the remaining details to the satisfaction of the CIT(E), directing the CIT(E) to decide the application afresh after granting a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to make necessary compliance and update contact details, and was granted a reasonable opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal admitted a new ground of appeal raised by the assessee regarding the validity of the reassessment notice u/s 148 being barred by limitation. Since this issue was not decided by the lower authorities, the Tribunal remitted all issues back to the AO for de novo assessment.
The Tribunal held that the principle of res judicata does not apply to income tax proceedings and that the assessee's non-compliance led to an ex-parte assessment. However, considering the Covid-19 period and the ex-parte nature of the orders, the Tribunal restored the issue to the AO.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. All issues were remitted back to the CIT(E) for denovo adjudication with an opportunity to the assessee to furnish relevant documents.
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals. All issues were remitted back to the CIT(E) for denovo adjudication with an opportunity to the assessee to furnish relevant documents.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in limine as there was no liability for advance tax. The case was remitted to the AO for denovo adjudication.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer's disallowance of depreciation was erroneous, as the assessee had produced evidence to substantiate its claim. The appeal was allowed.
Citing a Bombay High Court judgment, the ITAT ruled that the CIT(A) is obligated to dispose of appeals on merits, even in ex-parte orders. The ITAT remitted the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the assessee to update their contact details.
The tribunal noted that the assessee could not file necessary details before the CIT(A). Since no proper representation was made and no documentary evidence was furnished, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition. The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal found that the impounded document did not show any cash payment for the plot in question. The statement from a partner of Yashoda Properties also did not indicate any cash payment by the assessee for this specific plot. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was not substantiated.
The Tribunal held that the AO should not have disturbed the profit declared by the assessee under Section 44AD. However, the issue of loans received needs to be restored to the AO for verification of identity and creditworthiness of the loan creditors.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee sought to produce additional evidence which goes to the root of the matter, it was proper to restore the issue to the file of the CIT (Exemption) for fresh adjudication after granting an opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its claim.
The Tribunal held that the non-compliance was due to genuine difficulties faced by the assessee and not intentional. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(Exemption) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case.
The Tribunal held that the investment in eligible bonds under Section 54EC was made within six months of receiving the sale consideration, aligning with the spirit of the law, and thus the deduction should be allowed. The Tribunal also allowed grounds related to Section 54F, though the specific reasoning for that is not fully detailed in the provided excerpt.
The Tribunal noted that the coordinate bench had already set aside the quantum assessment for the same assessment year. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the penalty order and restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal allowed the commission expenses, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient primary evidence and the revenue had not brought any adverse material. However, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding donation and gift expenses due to the assessee's failure to provide adequate details and receipts.
The Tribunal held that the disallowance of the deduction u/s 80IB(10) by the AO in the order u/s 143(1) and 154 was without valid reason and not sustainable. The AO was directed to allow the deduction.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(E) and directed them to grant the assessee one final opportunity to submit all requisite details. The CIT(E) is to decide the application afresh on merits, with the assessee strictly adhering to timelines without seeking adjournments.
The Tribunal, considering the insertion of Section 155(19) and related CBDT circulars, directed the Assessing Officer to decide the issue of excess sugarcane purchase price afresh after the assessee files an application under Section 154. For the sale of sugar at a concessional rate, the matter was also remanded to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh based on Supreme Court directions, emphasizing the need for the assessee to provide necessary details.
The Tribunal held that the CIT(Exemption) rejecting the application solely on the non-submission of the earlier registration certificate was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(E) had access to the registration data. The orders were set aside for de-novo adjudication.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the CIT(E) to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to submit the required details. The assessee was directed to comply without seeking further adjournments.
The Tribunal, considering the insertion of Section 155(19) and related CBDT circulars, directed the Assessing Officer to decide the issue of excess sugarcane purchase price afresh after the assessee files an application under Section 154. For the sale of sugar at a concessional rate, the matter was also remanded to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh based on Supreme Court directions, emphasizing the need for the assessee to provide necessary details.
The Tribunal condoned the 257-day delay in filing the appeal, noting the non-communication of notices to the correct email ID and citing Supreme Court judgments. The Tribunal also set aside the CIT(A)/NFAC's ex-parte order for violating Section 250(6) of the Act, as it did not consider the merits.
The Tribunal held that the rejection of the application solely on the ground of a wrong section code used inadvertently was a hyper-technical ground. The Tribunal restored the issue to the CIT(E) to provide one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate its case.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee failed to provide necessary details despite several opportunities, the CIT(E) was justified in rejecting the application. However, considering the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the CIT(E) for a final opportunity to the assessee.
The Tribunal held that although the assessee failed to provide necessary details, granting one final opportunity would be in the interest of justice. The matter was set aside to the CIT(E) to decide the application afresh after allowing the assessee to substantiate its case.
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer, granting the assessee one last opportunity to substantiate their case with requisite details, noting the previous lack of explanation and non-appearance. A cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed on the assessee.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned by a co-operative society from its surplus funds invested in co-operative banks and scheduled banks is eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a) and 80P(2)(d). The delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was condoned.